NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING 
MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 
OF FLORIDA 
SECOND DISTRICT 
GREG GOMEZ, )
) 
Appellant, )
) 
v. ) Case No. 2D03-5159 
) 
UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS ) 
COMMISSION and ASSET ACCEPTANCE ) 
LLC, )
) 
Appellees. )
) 
Opinion filed October 13, 2004. 
Appeal from the Unemployment Appeals 
Commission. 
Thomas G. DiFiore of Bay Area 
Legal Services, Inc., Tampa, 
for Appellant. 
John D. Maher, Deputy General 
Counsel, for Appellee Unemployment 
Appeals Commission. 
No appearance for Appellee Asset 
Acceptance LLC. 
SILBERMAN, Judge. 

Greg Gomez appeals a final order of the Unemployment Appeals 
Commission (UAC) affirming the appeals referee's decision that Gomez is disqualified
from receipt of benefits because he was discharged for misconduct connected with 
work. We reverse the order because the factual finding to support the determination of 
misconduct was based entirely on hearsay evidence. 

The decision of the appeals referee reflects that Gomez was employed as 
a skip tracer for a collection agency from May 21, 2001, until December 30, 2002. The 
appeals referee based his finding of misconduct on (1) a final warning issued to Gomez 
on December 6, 2002, for using the Internet for personal reasons during business 
hours, in violation of the employer's policy; (2) Gomez's subsequent promise not to use 
the Internet for nonbusiness purposes; and (3) hearsay testimony that a computergenerated 
report, which was not introduced into evidence, showed that Gomez 
repeatedly broke that promise from December 7, 2002, through December 23, 2002, 
and accessed Internet sites for nonbusiness purposes. Although the referee mentioned 
an earlier final warning given to Gomez in June 2002 for insubordination, the referee 
specifically relied on the Internet abuse that occurred after the December 6 warning to 
find misconduct. 

The UAC upheld the referee's decision, with one member dissenting. We 
agree with Commissioner Forst's dissenting opinion that evidence of any Internet abuse 
after the warning of December 6, 2002, was hearsay and insufficient to support a finding 
of misconduct. In unemployment compensation hearings, "hearsay evidence is 
admissible only for the purpose of explaining or supplementing other evidence. It is not 
sufficient, standing alone, to prove a material fact in issue unless it would be admissible 
over objection in a civil proceeding." Yost v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 848 So. 
2d 1235, 1237 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); see also § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2003). Although
the employer had the right to terminate Gomez, the evidence was insufficient to prove 
misconduct connected with work so as to deny unemployment compensation benefits. 
See Yost, 848 So. 2d at 1238. Therefore, we reverse the final order of the UAC and 
remand with directions to award Gomez unemployment compensation benefits. 

Reversed and remanded. 
FULMER and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.