Rue could argue that K-Mart, having failed to meet the lesser burden of proof to deny her benefits in the unemployment compensation action, should not be given another opportunity to prevail in a civil action. We cannot, in fairness, hold employees to a higher standard than we hold employers. Rather, if we conclude that an employer does not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate in an administrative hearing, we must likewise conclude that an employee lacks the same opportunity. I must also disagree with the majority’s characterization of a workers’ compensation hearing as more closely akin procedurally to a civil action than to an unemployment compensation hearing. (Majority opinion at 507.) See Anzaldo v. W.C.A.B. M & M Restaurant Supply Co., 667 A.2d 488, 493 (Pa.Cmwlth.1995) (<HOLDING>), allocatur denied, 544 Pa. 676, 678 A.2d 366
holding due process requires that 1 the board be presented with a full statement of the facts and all supporting data bearing upon the disputes  and 2 the parties may be heard either in person by counsel or by other representatives  and the  board shall give due notice of all hearings to the employee  holding that the court should make factual findings from the record evidence as if it were conducting a trial on the record holding that upon the request of the losing party on a motion to suppress evidence the trial court shall state its essential findings holding that the workmens compensation act section  834 which states that neither the board nor the referee shall be bound by the common law or statutory rules of evidence in conducting a hearing or investigation but all findings of fact shall be based upon sufficient competent evidence permits an informationgathering process which favors admitting all offered evidence into the record holding that due process requires that the findings and actions of a disciplinary prison board be supported by some evidence in the record