URSULA RIETTER, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION AND CHARLES ORVIETTO, APPELLEES

Fla. 3d DCA | 2004-06-30
No. 3D03-1810
Before LEVY, FLETCHER, and WELLS, JJ.
875 So. 2d 808 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2004)

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.


Holding

The court held that the claimant was ineligible for unemployment benefits due to misconduct connected with her work.


Facts & Procedural History

The claimant was denied unemployment benefits due to misconduct. She appealed, arguing she was not given an opportunity to present her side of the sto…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Ursula Rietter appeals from a final order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission affirming the unemployment compensation appeals referee’s determination that Rietter was ineligible for benefits due to misconduct connected with her work. We affirm.

The standard of review of an administrative agency’s adjudicative findings is whether those findings are supported by substantial competent record evidence. See Gfrorer v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 864 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Our review of the record reveals that there is substantial competent evidence supporting the referee’s finding that Rietter was dismissed for misconduct connected with her work and is thus ineligible to receive unemployment compensation benefits.

Rietter also contends that she was not given an opportunity at the hearing to offer her version of why she was dismissed from her job. However, the record shows that the appeals referee advised Rietter that she was entitled to ask questions and make statements on her own behalf. She was asked if she understood the hearing procedures to which question Rietter responded in the affirmative. The record shows that the appeals referee gave Riet-ter the opportunity to ask questions after the allegations of misconduct were presented; to offer additional testimony of her own; and to make a closing statement. We therefore affirm the final order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw