KEN L. ROMANENKO, APPELLANT,
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 2000-08-25
No. 5D00-285
HARRIS and PETERSON, JJ„ concur.
763 So. 2d 1288 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2000) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases


Opinion of the Court
GRIFFIN, J.

GRIFFIN, J.

Appellant, Ken L. Romanenko [“Roman-enko”], appearing pro se, has appealed an order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission [“UAC”] affirming a referee’s decision denying him unemployment compensation. The referee’s factual findings cannot be disturbed as long as they are supported by competent, substantial evidence, no matter whether there is other evidence which would support a different result. Fanelli v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 711 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Corman v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 687 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Likewise, the UAC’s interpretation of the law cannot be overturned by this court unless it is clearly erroneous. Brooks v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 695 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Because our review of the record shows there is competent, substantial evidence to support the determination that Romanenko engaged in misconduct connected with his work, which resulted in his discharge, we must affirm the denial of benefits.

AFFIRMED.

HARRIS and PETERSON, JJ„ concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • …Koenigsberg to refrain from submitting a plan until after he sought the advice of his attorney. The standard of review of a UAC’s interpretation of law is whether the interpretation is clearly erroneous, Romanenko v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 763 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), and in this instance, we find no error. In the alternative, the employers argue that Koenigsberg’s conduct during the course of his employment was misconduct sufficient to warrant a denial of benefits. Essentially, this argumen…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw