C. BELLE MORROW, APPELLANT,
v.
ALERT NON-EMERGENCY TRANSPORT AND FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, 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.
Morrow's appeal of unemployment benefits denial was affirmed because she left employment for personal reasons without good cause attributable to her employer, even though her brother's illness initially justified her absence.
An employee who leaves work due to a family member's illness without good cause attributable to the employer is ineligible for unemployment benefits.
[1] An employee who leaves employment due to a family member's illness without good cause attributable to the employer is ineligible for unemployment benefits even if the ill…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMorrow left her employment after her brother became gravely ill, despite her employer's refusal to approve her absence. She discovered her brother's c…
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 Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
C. Belle Morrow appeals the denial of her claim for unemployment benefits. The appeals referee found that Morrow left her employment for good personal reasons but without good cause attributable to the employer. The referee explained that although Morrow’s brother’s grave illness may have justified her initial decision to leave on the weekend to check on him despite her employer’s refusal to approve her absence, she should have returned to work on Monday after she discovered that her brother’s condition had stabilized. This finding of fact was adopted by the Unemployment Appeals Commission. The commission’s order is entitled to a presumption of correctness. We find no legal errors and Morrow failed to show that the finding of ineligibility was not supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record. Therefore, because Morrow left her job without good cause attributable to her employer, she is not eligible for unemployment benefits. See, e.g., Hartenstein v. Florida Dep’t of Labor and Employment Sec., 383 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Garcia v. AT & T Communications, Inc., 575 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Howlett v. South Broward Hosp. Tax Dist., 451 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
Affirmed.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and FULMER and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tallahassee Primary Care Assocs. v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 930 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…mant, Claimant was not disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. The UAC affirmed the appeals referee’s decision. On appellate review, the UAC’s decision is entitled to a presumption of correctness. Morrow v. Alert Non-Emergency Transport, 725 So. 2d 418, 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). This court reviews the UAC’s [*826] decision to determine whether it is clearly erroneous and whether it is supported by competent, substantial evidence. Smith v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 698 So. 2d 1344, 1345 (Fla. 5th…
-
Nisbet v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc., 769 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…8 So. 2d 358, 359 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). We find no legal error, and Nisbet failed to show that the finding of disqualification for unemployment benefits was not supported by competent, substantial evidence. See Morrow v. Alert Non-Emergency Transport, 725 So. 2d 418, 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Therefore, we affirm the determination that Nisbet is not eligible for unemployment benefits. AFFIRMED. PATTERSON, C.J., and WHATLEY, J., Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Hartenstein v. Fla. Dep't OF Labor & Emp. Sec., 383 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Taylor v. City Nat'l Bank, 575 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Erskine Fla. Props., Inc. v. Hartwell, 451 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)