TAMMY L. BOTTO, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, APPELLEE
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.
Tammy Botto appealed the denial of unemployment benefits for a five-week period during which she attended fire inspector training school. The court reversed and remanded, finding the referee failed to consider whether Botto qualified for an exception allowing benefits for department-approved training programs.
The court reversed the denial of benefits and remanded the case because the referee failed to address whether section 443.091(l)(c)2 applied to Botto's situation. Under that statute, a person in training with departmental approval may not be denied benefits based on the availability-for-work requirement.
[1] A claimant in approved training shall not be denied unemployment benefits for being unavailable for work.
[2] An unemployment benefits appeals referee must address the application of statutory provisions relevant to the claimant's situation.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 in training with the approval of the department shall not be denied benefits by reason of the application of the provision in section 443.091(l)(e)l. relating to availability for work”
This quote establishes the statutory exception that exempts department-approved trainees from the availability-for-work requirement.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBotto was receiving unemployment benefits when she decided to attend a fire inspector training program. She asserts that her unemployment counselor in…
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 Benefits Eligibility cases and more on FLexlaw
HALL, VINCENT T., Senior Judge.
Tammy Botto seeks review of an order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission. The Commission affirmed the decision of an appeals referee denying unemployment benefits to Ms. Botto for a five-week period during which she was in training. We reverse and remand for further proceedings because the referee failed to address the application of section 443.091(l)(c)2., Florida Statutes (1995), to the facts of this case.
Ms. Botto was collecting unemployment benefits when she became interested in attending school to become a fire inspector. She asserts that her counsellor at the unemployment office in Tampa assured her she would continue to receive benefits while she attended the course. Ms. Botto completed and returned paperwork concerning the school to the Tampa office. Once she began the program, however, her unemployment benefits were discontinued. Ms. Botto appealed the denial of benefits. The referee determined that she was not entitled to benefits for the five-week period she attended school because she was not “able to work and ... available for work,” as required by section 443.091(l)(e)l., Florida Statutes (1995). As previously noted, the Unemployment Appeals Commission affirmed the referee’s decision.
The appeals referee’s order fails to consider the legal effect of section 443.091(l)(c)2. That section provides that a person in training with the approval of the department shall not be denied benefits by reason of the application of the provision in section 443.091(l)(e)l. relating to availability for work. The referee’s findings of fact show that Ms. Botto was attending a short-term program that would qualify her for a new job. Cf. Goller v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 643 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (qualified training program under section 443.231, Florida Statutes, is a vocational or technical school or class designed to prepare the participant for employment in a recognized occupation; college courses do not qualify). Yet, the referee applied section 443.091(l)(c)l. without setting forth any findings that showed section 443.091(l)(c)2. was inapplicable. The findings do not discuss, or in any way refute, Ms. Botto’s contention that the Tampa unemployment office approved her training program.
It appears that the referee utilized the wrong statute in this case. We, therefore, reverse the Unemployment Appeals Commission’s order denying Ms. Botto benefits for the period of time she attended fire inspector school. We remand to the appeals referee to consider whether section 443.091(l)(c)2. applies to Ms. Botto’s situation.
Reversed and remanded.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gant v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 743 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…eferee on remand should consider whether the training program is a sufficient basis to relieve Ms. Gant of the obligation to reimburse the State for the benefits she received after November 22, 1997. See Botto v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 684 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Reversed. WHATLEY and CASANUEVA, JJ., Concur. . It is unclear whether she went to work as a nurse's aide at that time, but she was so employed at the time of her hearing before the appeals referee. . See § 443.151(6), Fla. St…
Authorities Cited
- Goller v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 643 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)