CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION AND VERNON L. MOODY, 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 City of Fort Lauderdale terminated employee Vernon Moody based on a positive drug test result, but the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission found Moody qualified for unemployment benefits because the lab report establishing the positive result was inadmissible hearsay lacking proper foundation. The appellate court affirmed, holding that hearsay evidence alone, without proper business record authentication, is insufficient to prove a fact in issue in unemployment compensation proceedings.
The lab report constituted inadmissible hearsay lacking the reliability and trustworthiness required for business record exception, and hearsay evidence alone is insufficient to prove a fact in issue in unemployment compensation proceedings. Therefore, the Commission's finding that Moody was qualified for unemployment benefits is affirmed because there was insufficient evidence that Moody tested positive for cocaine.
[1] Hearsay alone, which would not be admissible over objection in civil actions, is insufficient to prove a fact in issue in an unemployment compensation claim proceeding.
[2] A laboratory report, offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, constitutes hearsay unless a witness from the laboratory testifies to establish it as a business r…
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“The sole evidence that Moody tested positive for cocaine was a lab report prepared by an independent laboratory procured by the City. No one from the laboratory was called as a witness to establish that the lab report was a business record of the laboratory, admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule under section 90.803(6), Florida Statutes (1987).”
Establishes the evidentiary deficiency—lack of foundation testimony for business record exception
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVernon Moody was employed by the City of Fort Lauderdale as an Engineering Inspector II. In March 1986, his drug use came to the City's attention, and…
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 Unemployment Compensation Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
WETHERINGTON, GERALD T., Associate Judge.
The City of Fort Lauderdale appeals an order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission affirming the appeals referee’s decision that Vernon L. Moody was qualified for unemployment compensation benefits. We affirm.
The pertinent facts reflect that Moody was employed by the City as an Engineering Inspector II. Sometime in March of 1986, Moody’s drug use came to the City’s attention.
On April 1, 1986, Moody went on sick leave and, with the City’s assistance, enrolled in a 28-day in-house drug treatment program at Humana Hospital.
However, Moody was administratively discharged from the program on April 15, 1986, because of a disputed drug test result. Moody was thereafter allowed to return to work under certain conditions specified in a “last chance agreement” which he signed on May 8, 1986. The “last chance agreement” conditioned Moody’s return to work upon his submission to random drug testing, and provided that a positive drug test result would constitute Moody’s voluntary resignation/termination from employment.
On May 14, 1986, the City advised Moody that his “drug screening test conducted on May 8, 1986, tested positive for cocaine use,” and that Moody was being terminated .“because of the positive test results indicating current use of cocaine.”
Subsequently, a claims adjudicator determined that Moody was qualified for unemployment compensation benefits. The City filed a notice of appeal and a hearing was conducted before an appeals referee on April 27, 1987. The appeals referee found that Moody was qualified for unemployment compensation benefits. The Commission affirmed the referee’s decision on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence that Moody tested positive for cocaine. We agree.
The sole evidence that Moody tested positive for cocaine was a lab report prepared by an independent laboratory procured by the City. No one from the laboratory was called as a witness to establish that the lab report was a business record of the laboratory, admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule under section 90.803(6), Florida Statutes (1987).
The lab report thus constituted hearsay, lacking the reliability and trustworthiness of a business record as defined in the above statutory rule of evidence. See Beasley v. Mitel of Delaware, 449 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
Although hearsay is admissible in an unemployment compensation claim proceeding for certain purposes, hearsay alone, which would not be admissible over objection in civil actions, is insufficient to prove a fact in issue. Florida Mining & Materials Corp. v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 530 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); § 120.58(l)(a), Fla. Stat.(1987). The Commission’s conclusion that the hearsay lab report was insufficient to establish that Moody tested positive for cocaine is therefore supported by the foregoing principles of law and by competent, substantial evidence.
Accordingly, its decision that Moody was qualified for unemployment compensation benefits is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
DOWNEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Doyle v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Mid-State Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 635 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…of the hearsay exceptions found in sections 90.803(6) or (8), Florida Statutes (1991). Southern Bakeries, Inc. v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 545 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); City of Fort Lauderdale v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 536 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); University of North Florida v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 445 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The fact that an employee does not object to the admissibility of such critical documentary evidence does not preclude an appellate…
-
Davis v. State, 562 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…onstrates, no effort was made to authenticate the lab report as a business record; nor was any other exception to the general rule excluding hearsay evidence established. See also, City of Fort Lauderdale v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 536 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Appellant points to the unavailability of the sample for retesting2 and asserts that such unavailability, combined with the unavailability for cross examination of the technician who actually tested the sample, deprived him of…
-
Kurynka v. Tamarac Hosp. Corp., Inc., 542 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…(Fla. 4th DCA 1970). However, medical records, just as any other type of business records, cannot be admitted without a predicate demonstrating the authenticity of the records. Cf. City of Fort Lauderdale v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 536 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); National Car Rental System, Inc. v. Holland, 269 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972), cert. denied, 273 So. 2d 768 (Fla.1973); Specialty Linings, Inc. v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 532 So. 2d 1121 (Fla.2d DCA 1988); Beasley v. Mitel of Delaw…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Beasley v. Mitel OF Del. & Home Ins. Co., 449 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Fla. Mining & Materials Corp. v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 530 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)