Florida Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the Courts of Florida - unoffical reports - Opinions

ROMINGER LEGAL

Florida Case Law & Florida Court Opinions - Florida Law

Need Legal Help?

LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER

LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS

NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This court case was taken from the Florida Court's web site. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
SYNCROLIFT ROLLS ROYCE
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
Appellant,
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
v.
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT
CASE NO. 1D03-0268
APPEALS COMMISSION,
Appellee.
__________________________/
Opinion filed March 26, 2004.
An appeal from an order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission.

Jose I. Leon; Ford & Harrison LLP, Miami, for Appellant.
Therese Pine, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
HAWKES, J.
Appellant, Syncrolift Rolls Royce, appeals the final order of the Unemployment
Appeals Commission (UAC), which rejected the findings of fact of the Appeals
Referee, after concluding the findings were based on hearsay alone. We reverse and
remand.
The record indicates that, when completing the new hire paperwork, Syncrolift
learned the claimant used two different social security numbers, and had provided an

illegible social security card. Syncrolift gave the claimant an opportunity to provide
a legible card, but when the card arrived, it contained a third social security number.
Following the claimant's inability, over a four-month period, to adequately explain her
use of three social security numbers, Syncrolift discharged the claimant, and she
requested unemployment compensation.
At the unemployment compensation hearing, the claimant testified she
mistakenly provided Syncrolift with three social security numbers. Syncrolift
presented hearsay evidence in the form of counsel's testimony, and various
documents, including drivers' licence records and other documents filled out by the
claimant, which indicated the claimant had been knowingly using at least two of these
numbers for several years.
Following the hearing, the Referee found the claimant presented Syncrolift with
inaccurate social security numbers on several occasions over a four month period.
The Referee further found the claimant's actions in presenting multiple social security
numbers violated a standard of behavior Syncrolift had a right to expect, and
demonstrated an intentional substantial disregard of her duties and obligations to
Syncrolift. The Referee concluded the claimant was terminated for misconduct in
connection with work and disqualified her from receiving unemployment compensation
benefits.
-2-

The claimant appealed this decision to the UAC. The UAC found the Referee's
findings, if not supported solely by hearsay, would have been sufficient to find the
claimant was terminated for misconduct in connection with work. However, the UAC,
concluding the Referee reached his decision by relying exclusively upon hearsay,
reversed the Referee's order.
It is well-established that in unemployment compensation appeals, hearsay is
admissible only for the purpose of explaining or supplementing other evidence, and
that, standing alone, it is insufficient to prove a material fact. See Tassone v.
Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 662 So.2 d 1003 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Yost v.
Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 848 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). However,
in this case, the claimant's own testimony provided competent, substantial evidence
that she provided Syncrolift with different social security numbers. Although she
claimed to have done so by mistake, the Referee, as the fact finder, was free to find
her testimony on this point lacked credibility, and reject her explanation as to why she
used these numbers. The hearsay evidence offered by Syncrolift supplemented or
explained the evidence offered by the claimant, and provided a different explanation
for her use of the numbers. Because the Referee's findings are based on competent,
substantial evidence, they must be accepted by the UAC. See Ford v. S.E. Atl. Corp.,
588 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
-3-

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Florida Case Law & Florida Court Opinions - Florida Law
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE