The hearing officer erred in not permitting the appellant's expert witness to testify. Only "irrelevant immaterial or unduly repetitious evidence shall be excluded" during formal agency proceedings. SEC. 120.58(1)(a) Fla. Stat. (1991). Moreover in administrative proceedings the formalities in the introduction of testimony common to Court of justice are not strictly employed. De Groot v. Sheffield 95 So. 2d 912 916 (Fla. 1957); see also Sauls v. De Loach 182 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 1st DCA) cert. denied 188 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 1966). Accordingly we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

COPE and GODERICH JJ. concur.

Concuring: The Hon. Justice Freguson

I concur in the result and write separately to add more facts.

Mrs. Bass was hired as a Dade County Corrections Officer in 1982. Over the years she built a fine employment record receiving numerous commendations and outstanding performance evaluations. Mrs. Bass selected August 8 1990 as the date for her biannual physical examination which included an alcohol and drug test. According to the laboratory her urine sample tested positive for the presence of cocaine. On the basis of the test result she was terminated from employment.

When Mrs. Bass learned of the results of the urine test she voluntarily underwent further drug testing. The results of these subsequent tests which included a hair analysis test showed no evidence of cocaine use. Included in the results was a report by Dr. Weiner Baumgartner which suggested a scientific basis for a false positive reading on the August 8th urinalysis test.

At a formal hearing requested by Mrs. Bass she sought to introduce evidence of the hair analysis test and the letter from Dr. Baumgartner explaining how a false positive reading could have been obtained on the urinalysis. The hearing officer refused to admit this evidence.

Exclusion of the evidence was error. The radioimmunoassay analysis of human hair to determine cocaine use is generally accepted in the scientific community. See e.g. United States v. Riley 906 F.2d 841 (2d Cir. 1990); United States v. Medina 749 F. Supp. 59 (E.D. N.Y. 1990); In re Adoption of Baby Boy L 157 Misc. 2d 353 596 N.Y.S.2d 997 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1993); Cole v. Texas 839 S.W.2d 798 (Tex. Crim.App. 1990); Burgel v. Burgel 141 A.D.2d 215 533 N.Y.S.2d 735 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988). See generally Harkey & Henderson Hair Analysis for Drugs of Abuse 2 Advances in Analytical Toxicology 298 (1985) (hair analysis can provide more accurate history of drug use than conventional urinalysis); Graham Koren Klein Schneiderman & Greenwald Determination of Gestational Cocaine Exposure of Hair Analysis 262 JAMA 3328 (1989) (RIA hair analysis may remedy the disadvantages of standard blood and urine tests). The hair analysis therefore meets the test for admissibility of novel scientific evidence as enunciated in Frye v. United States 54 App. D.C. 46 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923). See also Flanagan v. State 18 Fla. L. Weekly S475 n.2 (Fla. Sept. 9 1993) (Florida continues to follow the Frye test for admissibility of Scientific evidence). *fn1

Furthermore the exclusion of Mrs. Bass's expert's opinion regarding a false positive reading on the urinalysis was error. That testimony was admissible to rebut the State's claim that the urinalysis test was reliable. See Charles W. Ehrhardt Florida Evidence SEC. 702.2 at 500 (1993 ed.) (expert testimony interpreting the results of a scientific test is admissible).

Finally Mrs. Bass's evidence should not have been excluded on the basis of hearsay. Under section 120.58(1)(a) Florida Statutes (1991) hearsay is admissible for the purpose of supplementing or explaining other evidence. Because the documents submitted by Bass were offered to explain and rebut the scientific evidence offered by the appellee they were admissible.