WILLIAM P. SHARP, JR., 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.
The court held that the unemployment appeals commission's denial of employment benefits was supported by competent substantial evidence, affirming the commission's order.
Appellant was terminated for excessive absenteeism and failure to provide proper notice of absences. Appellant claimed psychological problems caused t…
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 Competent Substantial Evidence Standard Of Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the order of the unemployment appeals commission denying employment benefits to appellant. Appellant was terminated for excessive absenteeism and for failing to give proper notice of nonattendance. These grounds were supported by testimony given before the referee. At the hearing, appellant contended that his psychological problems caused attendance failure, yet he never advised his supervisor of his problems, and the referee found that any problems he had did not excuse his failure to give his employer notice of his absences. We agree with Florida Indus. Comm’n v. Nordin, 101 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958) as to the assessment of a case of conflicting evidence on appeal:
[w]e have examined the record and find that there is competent substantial evidence to support the findings of the Commission. This being the case, the fact that there was evidence which would lead to a different conclusion is of no import.
101 So. 2d at 891. It is for the referee as finder of fact to weigh conflicting evidence. See San Roman v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 711 So. 2d 93, 95 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
Secondly, a finding of misconduct is justified under section 443.086(26), Florida Statutes (1997), when the employer presents evidence of excessive unauthorized absenteeism. See also Tallahassee Housing Authority v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 483 So. 2d 413, 414 (Fla. 1986); Thurber v. Hillier & Wanless, P.A., 642 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
Affirmed.
WARNER, C.J., STONE and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Azucena Velazquez v. State, 916 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…oted the conflicting testimony in the findings. The fact that there is evidence in the record to support the opposite decision by the appeals referee does not require the commission to reweigh such evidence. See Sharp v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 766 So. 2d 444, 445 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). In the instant case, Velazquez claimed she was only late twice while the employer testified that she was late numerous times even after being given a verbal warning. The appeals referee found the employer more credible. Ve…
Authorities Cited
- Tallahassee Hous. Auth. v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 483 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 1986)
- Fla. Indus. Comm'n v. Nordin, 101 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- Roman v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Aldrich Party Rental, Inc., 711 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Thurber v. Hillier & Wanless, P.A., 642 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)