MICROFILE, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
SANDRA WILLIAMS AND DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, STATE OF FLORIDA, UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, 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 Unemployment Appeals Commission properly rejected the referee's misconduct finding against Sandra Williams because the Commission may reach a different legal conclusion from the referee based on the same facts, and the Commission's exceptions to the referee's factual findings were supported by substantial competent evidence.
The Unemployment Appeals Commission may reach a different conclusion of law from the referee based on the same facts without violating the standard of review.
[1] An administrative appeals commission may reach a different conclusion of law from a hearing referee based on the same facts without violating the standard of appellate re…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSandra Williams was found by a referee to be guilty of misconduct in an unemployment benefits case; the Unemployment Appeals Commission adopted the re…
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 Scope Of Review cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Judge.
Appellee, the Unemployment Appeals Commission, finding that the referee’s findings of fact were supported by substantial competent evidence, adopted them with certain specific exceptions. We find, as did the Unemployment Appeals Commission, that these exceptions from the referee’s findings were not supported by substantial competent evidence. The Unemployment Appeals Commission, basing its decision upon the findings of the referee as adopted with the noted exceptions, found that the referee’s conclusion of law that appellee Sandra Williams was guilty of misconduct was an erroneous one. Reaching a different conclusion of law from that of the referee is within the scope of review of the Unemployment Appeals Commission as provided by section 443.151(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1981), and we, therefore, affirm. Reaching a different conclusion of law from that of the referee, based upon the same facts as found by the referee or those properly rejected as not being supported by the record, does not violate the standard of review recognized in C.F. Chemicals, Inc. v. State Department of Labor, 400 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), and State Department of Commerce v. Dietz, 349 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977).
AFFIRMED.
OTT, C.J., and DANAHY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ritenour v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 570 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…r that the proceedings on which the findings were based did not comply with essential requirements of law. Reaching a different conclusion of law from that of the referee is within the scope of review of the commission. Microfile, Inc. v. Williams, 425 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). The commission in this case, basing its decision on the referee’s facts, concluded that the referee’s conclusion of law was erroneous. The legislature has given the commission that authority. See Microfile, Inc. v. Williams, sup…
-
Verner v. State, 474 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…It contends that, since a determination as to the legal effect of the evidence is a matter of interpretation and judgment within the province of the reviewing agency, its reversal of the appeals referee’s decision was proper. Microfile v. Williams, 425 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). We disagree. Case law suggests that questions of whether an unemployment benefits claimant left voluntarily are essentially questions of fact. See Flagler County Sheriff's Department v. Department of Labor and Employment Securit…
-
Tourte v. Oriole OF Naples, Inc., 696 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…Amato v. State, Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 648 So. 2d 284, 285 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Occasionally, it can be a pure question of law. See Platt v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 618. So. 2d 340 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); see also Microfile, Inc. v. Williams, 425 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (holding that Commission may reach a different conclusion of law from that of the referee, based upon the referee’s factual findings); Ritenour, 570 So. 2d 1106 (same). In Ms. Tourte’s case, the Commission could accept all the ref…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Huggins v. State, 400 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- State of Fla. Dep't OF Commerce v. Dietz, 349 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)