DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, AND ROBERT DAVIS, JR., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services appealed the denial of its request for an additional hearing to present evidence that an unemployment benefits claimant engaged in work-related misconduct. The court affirmed, holding that the department failed to establish misconduct by a preponderance of the evidence because its proof rested solely on inadmissible hearsay testimony.
The court affirmed that the department failed to prove misconduct by hearsay evidence alone, which is insufficient under section 120.58(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The court also held that the 'APPEAL INFORMATION' pamphlet's requirement that witnesses have 'personal knowledge of the material facts' clearly conforms to and articulates the hearsay rule, so no due process violation occurred.
[1] Hearsay evidence may supplement or explain other evidence but is insufficient on its own to support a finding unless admissible over objection in civil actions.
[2] A party seeking to disqualify a claimant from unemployment benefits must prove misconduct connected with work by a preponderance of the evidence.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“[h]earsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing or explaining other evidence, but it shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible over objection in civil actions.”
Statutory rule establishing that hearsay alone cannot support a finding in administrative proceedings, which the appeals referee correctly applied.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert Davis, Jr., claimed unemployment benefits. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services sought to disqualify him based on alleged misco…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Misconduct Connected With Work cases and more on FLexlaw
WIGGINTON, Judge.
We affirm the final order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission denying appellant’s request for an additional hearing in order to present further evidence, and affirming the decision of the appeals referee holding that the claimant, Robert Davis, Jr., should not be disqualified from receiving benefits. Pertinent to the issue raised on appeal was the conclusion of the appeals referee that appellant failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that claimant’s alleged conduct amounted to misconduct connected with his work, since appellant’s proof of misconduct rested solely on hearsay testimony. That conclusion was in conformance with the statement in section 120.58(l)(a), Florida Statutes, that “[h]earsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing or explaining other evidence, but it shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible over objection in civil actions.”
Apparently conceding that the subject hearsay testimony did not fall within any exception, the point appellant raises is that the “APPEAL INFORMATION” pamphlet provided by the Department of Labor and Employment Security does not articulate the substance of section 120.58(l)(a), or of rule 38E-5.24(4)(d), Florida Administrative Code, to the same effect, and therefore misled appellant and denied it due process of law. We disagree. Under subheading (5), “ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES,” the pamphlet specifically directs, “You should bring to the hearing only those individuals who have personal knowledge of the material facts which you intend to establish.” [Emphasis added.] We hold that language to conform to section 120.58(l)(a) and rule 38E-5.24(4)(d), and to be clear and unambiguous.
AFFIRMED.
WENTWORTH and NIMMONS, JJ„ concur.