FRANCIS J. MURRAY, APPELLANT,
v.
PUBLIX AND UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, ET AL., 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.
In this unemployment compensation appeal, Francis Murray challenged the Unemployment Appeals Commission's denial of benefits. The court affirmed the denial but used the case to clarify that referees must consider evidence from prior continued hearings, though finding the error in this case harmless because the evidence was cumulative.
A referee must consider all evidence presented at prior continued hearings as part of the record upon which the referee must make a decision. However, the referee's failure to do so constitutes harmless error when the evidence adduced before the first referee was cumulative of the evidence heard by the final referee.
[1] An unemployment compensation referee must consider all evidence adduced at prior hearings, even if conducted by a different referee, when making a decision.
[2] An error by an unemployment compensation referee in failing to consider prior evidence is harmless if that evidence is cumulative of evidence presented at the final heari…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“The mere fact that some of the evidence was presented to another referee does not render it any less a part of the record upon which the referee must make his decision.”
Establishes the principle that referees must consider evidence from prior continued hearings as part of the complete record.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMurray's unemployment compensation case involved multiple hearings before different referees. A hearing commenced before Referee O'Donnell on Septembe…
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 Unemployment Compensation Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks reversal of an order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission, which affirmed the findings of an appeals referee that appellant was not entitled to unemployment compensation benefits.
After fully considering the points on appeal suggested by appellant, we hold none demonstrates reversible error. This brief opinion is prompted by the suggestion in appellee Publix’s brief that some uncertainty exists among the unemployment compensation referees over whether they are required to consider the evidence adduced at a prior continued hear ing in arriving at their ultimate decisions. The question arose in this case as a result of multiple hearings held by two different referees. The first hearing commenced on September 3, 1981, before Referee O’Donnell, but was continued to October 1, 1981, without any testimony being taken. On October 1, 1981, evidence was adduced before Referee O’Donnell. At appellant’s request that hearing was continued and the matter reset for November 19, 1981. On that date, the final hearing was held before Referee Lynch. At the hearing, Referee Lynch stated that he would not listen to tapes of the prior hearings before Referee O’Donnell and consider that evidence. Appellant contends that this action is improper and we agree. The mere fact that some of the evidence was presented to another referee does not render it any less a part of the record upon which the referee must make his decision. However, in this case, the error is harmless because the evidence adduced before O’Donnell was cumulative of the evidence heard by Lynch. In fact, the witnesses were the same with one exception of no consequence because that testimony was either irrelevant or on a point conceded by the appellees.
Finding no reversible error demonstrated, we affirm the order appealed from.
DOWNEY, BERANEK and GLICK-STEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Martinson v. Breit's Tower Serv., Inc., 680 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…firm the Commission’s order. Affirmed. . Mr. Martinson’s alleged failure to receive timely the employees' individual statements was harmless, as the employees’ statements were merely cumulative to the employer's statement. See Murray v. Publix, 434 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).…