MARY BETH ANTONUCCI, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION AND ANTHONY J. ABBRUZZESE DMD PA, 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.
Mary Beth Antonucci appealed the denial of her unemployment benefits after voluntarily leaving her job as a dental assistant following two accidental puncture wounds from instruments within two months. The court affirmed the denial, holding that she lacked good cause attributable to her employer to quit because the average qualified worker in her position would not have left under similar circumstances.
The court affirmed the denial of unemployment benefits, holding that Antonucci lacked good cause attributable to her employer. The referee and Unemployment Appeals Commission implicitly determined that the average able-bodied dental assistant would not have left work after being punctured twice in a short time span.
[1] An employee is disqualified from unemployment benefits if she voluntarily left work without good cause attributable to her employer.
[2] Good cause for leaving employment is that which would reasonably impel the average able-bodied qualified worker to give up their employment.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“An employee is disqualified from unemployment benefits only if she has voluntarily left work without good cause attributable to her employer.”
States the statutory standard for disqualification from unemployment benefits under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAntonucci worked as a dental assistant and was punctured by an instrument in January 2000, then again two months later. Fearing for her health and saf…
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
POLEN, C.J.
Appellant appeals from a final order which effectively denied her unemployment benefits. We affirm.
Appellant worked as a dental assistant for a dentist. In January, 2000, she was stuck in the thumb with an instrument. She was stuck a second time two months later. After this second incident, and fearing for her health and safety, she decided to leave employment and apply for unemployment benefits.
The appeals referee found she voluntarily left work without good cause attributable to her employer and denied her benefits. He found that appellant was well aware of the risks associated with her employment, including being accidentally punctured by instruments. The Unemployment Appeals Commission (UAC) affirmed the referee’s decision.
An employee is disqualified from unemployment benefits only if she has voluntarily left work without good cause attributable to her employer. § 443.101(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (1999). “Good cause” is that which “would reasonably impel the average able-bodied qualified worker to give up his or her employment.” Wall v. Unemployment Appeals Com’n, 682 So. 2d 1187, 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (citation omitted). While the question of whether “good cause” exists often involves a mixed question of law and fact, this court has held it is an ultimate fact best left to the fact-finder. San Roman v. Unemployment Appeals Com’n, 711 So. 2d 93, 95 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (citations omitted). On review, the UAC may reject the referee’s conclusions of law without limitation, but may not reject his findings of fact if competent substantial evidence supports them. § 120.57, Fla. Stat. (1999). On review of the UAC’s determinations, this court must presume that the order is correct. Jen nings v. Unemployment Appeals Com'n, 689 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
In the instant case, the referee reasoned that Antonucci was aware that there were risks associated with her job. By-denying her unemployment benefits, both the referee and the UAC implicitly determined that the average able-bodied dental assistant would not have left work if punctured twice within a short time span while working with a dentist. In other words, they concluded that in leaving Antonucci lacked good cause attributable to her employer. As we are bound by this finding, we must affirm.
AFFIRMED.
DELL and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Costin v. Fla. A & M Univ. Bd. of Trs., 972 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…cts” derived from the “evidentiary facts supporting them.” Id. (citing Black’s Law Dictionary 1522 (6th ed. 1990)). Ultimate facts are also regularly described as “mixed questions” of law and fact, see, e.g., Antonucci [*1087] v. Unemp. App. Comm’n, 793 So. 2d 1116, 1117 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), and must generally be made by the fact finder in an administrative proceeding because they are “necessary for proper review of administrative orders.” Tedder, 697 So. 2d at 902; see also San Roman v. Unemp. App. Comm’n, 71…
-
Sullivan v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & SMG Food & Bev., LLC, 93 So. 3d 1047 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…y left work without good cause attributable to his or her employing unit[.]” “ ‘Good cause’ is that which ‘would reasonably impel the average able-bodied qualified worker to give up his or her employment.’ ” Antonucci v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 793 So. 2d 1116, 1117 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (quoting Wall v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 682 So. 2d 1187, 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)). In Lake v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 931 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), the claimant, as a result of being injured on the jo…
Authorities Cited
- Roman v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Aldrich Party Rental, Inc., 711 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Wall v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 682 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Jennings v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Healthsouth of Fort Lauderdale, 689 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)