SHIRLEY ROZELL, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION AND CG, INC., APPELLEES; RICHARD ROZELL, APPELLANT, V. STATE OF FLORIDA, UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION AND CG, INC., 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.
Shirley and Richard Rozell appealed the Unemployment Appeals Commission's denial of unemployment compensation benefits, arguing that the appeals referee erred in finding they left employment voluntarily and without good cause attributable to the employer. The court affirmed the UAC's decision because the claimants failed to provide a transcript of the proceedings below, preventing appellate review of whether the referee's findings were supported by competent, substantial evidence.
The court affirmed the UAC's decision because the claimants failed to provide a record (transcript) from which the court could review whether the referee's findings were based on competent, substantial evidence. Whether a claimant left employment voluntarily and without good cause attributable to the employer is a question of fact that should not be reversed if supported by competent, substantial evidence.
[1] A finding that a claimant left employment voluntarily and without good cause attributable to the employer is a question of fact.
[2] A factual finding regarding voluntary departure from employment without good cause attributable to the employer will not be reversed if supported by competent, substantia…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“'[G]ood cause attributable to the employer' is an ultimate fact best left to the fact-finder. A reasonable worker is much akin to the reasonable prudent person in the negligence context.”
Establishes the legal standard that whether good cause exists is a factual determination for the fact-finder, not subject to easy appellate reversal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceShirley and Richard Rozell (the claimants) left their employment and applied for unemployment compensation. An appeals referee found that the claimant…
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 Voluntary Departure From Employment cases and more on FLexlaw
PARKER, Acting Chief Judge.
Shirley and Richard Rozell (the claimants) appeal the orders of the Unemployment Appeals Commission (UAC) which affirmed the denial of unemployment compensation. The claimants argue that the UAC erred in affirming the appeals referee’s finding that they left employment voluntarily and without good cause attributable to the employer. However, the claimants have not provided a record from which this court could conclude that the UAC erred in finding that the appeals referee’s decision was based on competent, substantial evidence.
The claimants do not challenge the findings of fact made by the appeals referee. Instead, they argue that these facts do not support the referee’s conclusion that the claimants left employment voluntarily and without good cause attributable to the employer. However, whether a claimant left employment voluntarily and without good cause attributable to the employer is a question of fact, and a finding to that effect should not be reversed if it is based on competent, substantial evidence. See Tourte v. Oriole of Naples, Inc., 696 So. 2d 1283, 1285 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (“ ‘[G]ood cause attributable to the employer’ is an ultimate fact best left to the fact-finder. A reasonable worker is much akin to the reasonable prudent person in the negligence context.”); Carey McAnally & Co., Inc. v. Woodring, 629 So. 2d 301, 302 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). In this case, the claimants have not provided a copy of the transcript from the proceedings below. Accordingly, we have no basis from which to determine that the UAC erred in affirming the appeals referee’s findings.
Affirmed.
CASANUEVA and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gfrorer v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 864 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…er a claimant leaves employment voluntarily and without good cause attributable to the employer is a question of fact, and a finding should not be reversed if it is based on competent, substantial evidence. See Rozell v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 752 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Tourte v. Oriole of Naples, Inc., 696 So. 2d 1283, 1285 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Here, the Commission decided adversely to Ms. Gfrorer, and there is substantial competent evidence supporting this determination. Accordingly, we affirm…
-
Meridith R. Cain v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 876 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…nt voluntarily and without good cause attributable to the employer is a question of fact, and thus should not be disturbed on appeal provided there is competent, substantial evidence supporting it. See Gfrorer, Rozell v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 752 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). In the present case our review reflects that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the finding that Ms. Cain failed to meet or maintain known or accepted conditions of employment, and that she, therefore, left h…
-
Panzer v. Pers. ONE, Inc., 754 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…ut a transcript of the hearing before the appeals referee, there is no basis from which we can determine whether the Commission erred in affirming the appeals referee’s findings. We, therefore, must affirm. See Rozell v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 752 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). For this same reason, we cannot ascertain whether Panzer is correct in asserting that the amount of overpayment exceeds the amount she actually received. Moreover, the attachment supporting her contention was not part of the re…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tourte v. Oriole OF Naples, Inc., 696 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Carey McANALLY & Co., Inc. v. Woodring, 629 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)