KRISTIN H. WHITE, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Kristin White appealed the denial of unemployment benefits based on her refusal of employment she claimed was unsuitable. The court affirmed the denial because White failed to provide a record of the administrative proceedings, preventing meaningful appellate review.
The court affirmed the denial of unemployment benefits without reaching the substantive merits of whether the offered employment was suitable, based on the appellant's failure to provide a record of the proceedings below.
[1] An appellate court must affirm a lower court's decision when the appellant fails to provide a record of the proceedings below.
[2] The burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error in the trial court's decision.
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“In appellate proceedings the decision of a trial court has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error.”
Establishes the foundational principle that the appellant bears the burden of demonstrating error and the lower court's decision is presumed correct.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWhite was denied unemployment benefits by an appeals referee who found she had refused suitable employment. White declined work paying $7.00 per hour,…
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 Appellate Record Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Kristin H. White, appearing in proper person, appeals an order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission upholding the decision of an appeals referee to deny White unemployment benefits based on a finding that she had refused suitable employment. Because appellant failed to produce a record of the proceedings below, we affirm on the authority of Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1979).
White contends that the denial of unemployment benefits was erroneous because the work she declined was not “suitable employment” as defined in section 443.091(l)(c)(3), Florida Statutes (1995).1 She argues that the employment offered was not suitable in that it paid wages of only $7.00 per hour, substantially less than the $12.74 she alleges was her previous compensation.
The hearing before the appeals referee was not transcribed and no stipulated statement, see rule 9.200(a)(4), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, or statement of evidence, see rule 9.200(b)(4), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, has been filed in this court in lieu of a transcript. As a result, we cannot properly provide appellate review of the determination that appellant declined suitable employment. As the Supreme Court explained in Applegate:
In appellate proceedings the decision of a trial court has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error. * * * * *
When there are issues of fact the appellant necessarily asks the reviewing court to draw conclusions about the evidence. Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court’s judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory. Without knowing the factual context, neither can an appellate court reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to require reversal.
Applegate, 377 So. 2d at 1152.
Accordingly, the order on appeal is AFFIRMED.
BENTON, VAN NORTWICK and PADOVANO, JJ., concur. . Section 443.091(l)(c)(3), Florida Statutes (1995), provides in pertinent part, as follows: [T]he term “suitable employment” means, with respect to a worker, work of a substantially equal or higher skill level than the worker's past adversely affected employment, as defined for purposes of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, the wages for which are not less than 80 percent of the worker’s average weekly wage as determined for purposes of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 751 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…of the telephonic hearing and thus cannot demonstrate reversible error with regard to the appeals referee’s findings of fact, this court should affirm. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1979); White v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 714 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). We agree inso far as the claimant disputed such findings. Appellant, however, also argues that he was deprived of due process when the appeals referee considered an additional issue of which the claimant had no notice, which was…
Authorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)