JOHN E. SEIFRIED, APPELLANT,
v.
SHELL LUMBER AND HARDWARE COMPANY AND FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, APPELLEES
PER CURIAM.
Because the appeals referee’s determination that appellant was not guilty of misconduct, see Varig Brazilian Airlines v. Florida Department of Commerce, 354 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), was supported by competent evidence, it was unjustifiably reversed by the Unemployment Appeals Commission on the basis of its own conclusion that he was. See Cheung v. Executive China Doral, Inc., 617 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Iglesias v. Eagle Nat’l Bank of Miami, 598 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Accordingly, the order below is reversed with directions to afford Seifried the unemployment benefits claimed.
SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BASKIN, J., concur.
JORGENSON, Judge,
dissenting.
The appeals referee’s determination that Seifried was not guilty of misconduct was a conclusion based upon evidence which is not disturbed by the Unemployment Appeals Commission. The Commission owes no deference to conclusions of law and is entitled to construe section 443.036(26), Florida Statutes (1991), in accordance with established law and policy. See Ritenour v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 570 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Microfile, Inc. v. Williams, 425 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).
I would affirm.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Seijo v. C.B.M. Indus. OF Minn. & Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 662 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…Angela Seijo appeals an order denying unemployment compensation benefits. After careful consideration of the points raised by appellant, we find that the evidence is sufficient and no error of law has been shown. See Cardenas v. Office Depot, Inc., 619 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Wallace v. Zahn Dental Co., 618 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Gonzalez v. Master Flowers, Inc., 605 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). The order is therefore affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Ritenour v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 570 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Varig Brazilian Airlines v. Fla. Dep't OF Commerce, 354 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Microfile, Inc. v. Williams, 425 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Iglesias v. Eagle Nat'l Bank OF Miami, 598 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Cheung v. Executive China Doral, Inc., 617 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)