PHYLLIS GAINER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, AND UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, 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.
A Florida appellate court reversed an unemployment benefits denial, holding that an employee's violation of an employer's medical substantiation rule was not misconduct where the violation stemmed from drug addiction, a medically recognized illness that interfered with the employee's social and economic functions.
The employee was not guilty of misconduct because her violation of the employer's rule was not intentional but rather caused by drug addiction, a medically recognized illness. The Unemployment Code requires intent for a finding of misconduct, and the referee's finding that drug addiction caused the violation must be accepted as it was supported by competent substantial evidence.
[1] An employee's drug addiction may be considered a medically related illness when determining whether the employee's absence from work constitutes misconduct.
[2] An appeals commission cannot disturb a referee's finding of fact that is supported by competent substantial evidence.
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“because she was suffering from drug addiction. ... [T]he claimant's prolonged absence was caused by a medically related illness of drug addiction.”
The referee's factual finding that drug addiction, a medical condition, caused the employee's absence and violation of the employer's rule.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePhyllis Gainer was employed and violated her employer's requirement to provide medical substantiation for absences exceeding three days. She was absen…
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 Competent Substantial Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
[*429] PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order of the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission denying unemployment benefits to Phyllis Gainer, the claimant. The order under review overturned a decision by the appeals referee, who, after a full evidentiary hearing, found Gainer qualified to receive benefits.
The issue before the referee and the Commission was whether Gainer was guilty of misconduct when she undeniably violated her employer’s requirement of providing medical substantiation for absences from work of greater than three days. The referee found that Gainer’s failure in this regard came about
“because she was suffering from drug addiction. ... [T]he claimant’s prolonged absence was caused by a medically related illness of drug addiction.... Since the claimant chronically used drugs to the extent that it substantially interfered with her social and economic functions, it must therefore be concluded that she is suffering from drug addiction in the medical sense.”
Noting that Florida Administrative Code Rule 38B-2.17(5)(d) (1982) permitted him to consider drug addiction as an illness in determining misconduct vel non, the referee found that Gainer did not intentionally violate her employer’s rule and was thus not guilty of misconduct.
The Commission did not, as it could not, disturb the referee’s amply supported finding of drug addiction. Recognizing that the Unemployment Code unmistakably requires intent, see § 443.036(24), Fla.Stat. (1985), it drew the opposing factual inference that Gainer was capable of complying with her employer’s medical substantiation requirement from the fact that she had called her employer daily to report her absence.
But the referee’s finding of fact is otherwise and, being based on competent substantial evidence, must be accepted by the Commission. Taylor v. State, Dep’t of Labor & Employment Sec., 383 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Fla.Admin.Code Rule 38E-3.02(3) (1982). While the Commissioners might have believed Gainer’s reporting of her absences indicated her ability to comply with other rules, they simply ignored the referee’s finding that the claimant’s drug addiction interfered with her social and economic functions. This the Commission cannot do, and its order denying benefits to Gainer must accordingly be reversed with directions that the decision of the appeals referee be reinstated.
Reversed with directions.
JORGENSON Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
The Commission is entitled to draw legal conclusions from the facts found by the referee, and its legal conclusions may vary from the referee’s conclusions. § 120.-57(1)(b)(9), Fla.Stat. (1985). The conclusion reached by the referee was a mixed question of law and fact with which the Commission could disagree. The Commission was entitled to apply its expertise and reach a different conclusion about those facts. See McDonald v. Department of Banking & Fin., 346 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reason Ford, Jr. v. Se. Atl. Corp. & Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 588 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…t the final order is silent regarding whether Ford suffered from drug addiction, and fails as well to address such possibility in reaching the conclusion that appellant’s actions constituted misconduct. Compare Gainer v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 503 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (employee undeniably violated employer’s require [*1042] ment of providing medical substantiation for absences from work of greater than three days; however, the employee’s failure in that regard was not intentional misconduct, be…
-
Gilbert v. Dep't OF Corr. & Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 696 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…tutes.”); Ford v. Southeast Atl. Corp., 588 So. 2d 1039, 1041 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)(holding otherwise disqualifying conduct attributable to cocaine addiction does not preclude unemployment compensation benefits); Gainer v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 503 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)(holding drug-addicted employee’s derelictions were not intentional misconduct or otherwise disqualifying). We have also held that an employee’s absences occasioned by “family emergencies” are not misconduct that justifies a denia…
-
Gardner v. State, 682 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…of bed.” While appellant may have violated the technical terms of the “last chance agreement,” his failure in that regard was not intentional misconduct, because it took place due to his alcoholism. See Gainer, v. State, Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 503 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Thus, while the employer may have been justified in terminating appellant’s employment, we do not believe that appellant’s conduct was tantamount to misconduct connected with work. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directi…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McDONALD v. Dep't OF Banking & Fin., 346 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Taylor v. State, 383 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)