NORTH MIAMI GENERAL HOSPITAL INCORPORATED, APPELLANT,
v.
EVA L. PLAZA 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.
North Miami General Hospital challenged an unemployment compensation award to Eva Plaza, a respiratory therapist who worked on a casual, as-needed basis and twice rejected full-time employment. The court held that Plaza was ineligible for benefits because she was not "available for work" under Florida law, as she reserved the right to accept or reject work offers at will based on personal preferences.
A person who, like Ms. Plaza, works only when she wants to is not "available for work" within the meaning of Section 443.091(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and therefore is ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits.
[1] A worker who reserves the right to accept or reject employment offers at will is not "available for work" within the meaning of unemployment compensation statutes.
[2] A claimant who works only when they desire to work is ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits.
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“a person who, like Ms. Plaza, works only when she wants to is not "available for work" within the meaning of Section 443.091(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1981), and that she was therefore ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits”
States the holding of the case regarding the availability requirement for unemployment benefits
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEva Plaza worked at North Miami General Hospital as a respiratory therapist under an arrangement where she could accept or reject work offers at will.…
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 Availability For Work cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
Ms. Plaza worked at the North Miami General Hospital as a respiratory therapist. Having twice turned down opportunities for full-time employment, she maintained a relationship with the hospital in which she reserved the right to accept, or, if she desired for her own personal reasons, to reject at will any offers to work which North Miami might, but was likewise not bound to extend on a day-to-day basis.
We conclude that a person who, like Ms. Plaza, works only when she wants to is not “available for work” within the meaning of Section 443.091(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1981), and that she was therefore ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits. See Florida Industrial Commission v. Ciarlante, 84 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1955) (worker who desired employment only during season not “available” out-of-season); Teague v. Florida Industrial Commission, 104 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958) (same); Schmahman v. Corsi, 278 App.Div. 625, 101 N.Y.S.2d 991 (1951) (employee available for only self-restricted hours ineligible); In re Krieger, 279 App.Div. 681, 107 N.Y.S.2d 916 (1951) (same); Unemployment Compensation Commission v. Tomko, 192 Va. 463, 65 S.E. 2d 524 (1951) (miner who agreed to work only three days a week although full-time work available ineligible); Mississippi Employment Security Commission v. Blasingame, 237 Miss. 744, 116 So. 2d 213, 215 (1959) (worker may not attach conditions to employment “which he may desire because of his particular needs or circumstances.”); Annot., “Availability for work,” under unemployment compensation statute, of claimant who undertakes to restrict willingness to work, 25 A.L.R.2d 1077 (1952); 81 C.J.S. Social Security § 259 (1977); see also Smith v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, 52 Cal.App.3d 405, 125 Cal.Rptr. 35 (1975); cf. Wilmington Country Club v. Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, 301 A. 2d 289 (Del.1973) (“on call” bartender ineligible for periods when not called for work). For this reason we reverse the award of benefits for the period of April 9 — May 1, 19821 when Ms. Plaza did not work because the hospital did not have any for her to do.
Reversed.
. We do not consider any issue concerning January 25, 27, February 9, 10, March 13, 14, and May 19, 1982 because the commission has assured us that the hospital’s account has not in fact been charged for any of these dates.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baptist Med. Ctr. v. Loraine F. Stolte & Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 475 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…r work. I respectfully disagree in that I am confident that the agency’s interpretation of the law is within the range of interpretations presented to it by the statute. The majority relies primarily upon North Miami General Hospital, Inc. v. Plaza, 432 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) for its conclusion. I do not consider that Plaza correctly takes into account the scope of an agency’s authority under the Administrative Procedure Act. Plaza relies upon a substantial number of out-of-state eases holding that an…1 / 2
-
SUN States Servs., Inc. v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Maria L. Berger, 629 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…ppeal”, arguing at length that Berger was not eligible for unemployment because she had not been “available for work” within the meaning of section 443.091(l)(c)l. Sun relied on certain case authorities, mainly North Miami General Hospital v. Plaza, 432 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), for the proposition that employees who work on an “as needed” basis are not entitled to unemployment for those periods in which they are given less than full-time employment. Upon receipt of Sun’s letter, the claim was set for h…
-
Palm Beach Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. State, 504 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…rk. The claimant in this case was not removed from the list or laid off in any way. In fact, the claimant was working as a substitute on the day of her hearing before the unemployment appeals referee. In North Miami General Hospital, Inc. v. Plaza, 432 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), the court held that a respiratory therapist who worked for the hospital only when she wanted to was not eligible for unemployment compensation benefits. The court stated: [w]e conclude that a person who, like Ms. Plaza, works on…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fla. Indus. Comm'n v. Ciarlante, 84 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1955)
- Gammon v. Shell's Super Store, Inc., 104 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Teague v. Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 104 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- N. Miami Gen. Hosp. v. Eva L. Plaza & Dep't of Labor & Emp. Sec., 425 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)