CHARLES N. SMALLWOOD, PETITIONER,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, RESPONDENT
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.
A truck driver was denied unemployment compensation benefits after refusing to drive an overnight trip due to alleged vision deterioration from prior cataract surgeries. The court reversed, finding the evidence insufficient to support a misconduct finding and remanded for additional medical evidence regarding the driver's actual ability to perform highway driving.
The petitioner was justified in refusing the trip assignment because his unchallenged testimony regarding vision deficiency made highway driving potentially dangerous, and the evidence was insufficient to support a misconduct finding. The case was remanded for additional medical evidence to definitively determine the petitioner's ability to perform highway driving.
[1] An employee's refusal to perform a task may be justified if it poses a danger to themselves or others.
[2] An employee's subjective belief regarding their inability to perform a task due to a medical condition can be sufficient justification for refusal, absent contrary eviden…
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“Since the unemployment compensation act is to be construed liberally in favor of the claimant, Spaulding v. Florida Industrial Commission, 154 So. 2d 334 (Fla.3d DCA 1963), we conclude the evidence adduced in this case is insufficient to support the conclusion of the appeals referee and the Industrial Relations Commission.”
Establishes the court's application of the liberal construction rule for unemployment compensation statutes and its basis for finding insufficient evidence to support the misconduct determination.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCharles Smallwood worked as a long-distance truck driver for approximately ten years from 1966 to 1976. He underwent cataract operations on both eyes …
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 Misconduct Connected With Work cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
We have for review by petition for writ of certiorari an order of the Industrial Relations Commission affirming the decision of an appeals referee denying unemployment compensation benefits to petitioner. Briefly, the evidence reflected that petitioner was a long distance truck driver for his employer for some ten years from 1966 until 1976. In 1970 petitioner had a cataract operation on one eye and in 1971 a like operation on the other eye. Thereafter petitioner was utilized on local deliveries and warehouse work with the understanding that if an emergency developed he would drive the longer trips.
Just prior to his discharge petitioner was directed to drive an overnight trip and he refused. He testified that he refused because his peripheral vision had deteriorated since the cataract operation and he felt he was not capable of the kind of driving required to operate large trucks on the open highway. This refusal brought about his discharge.
The appeals referee found that petitioner was discharged for misconduct connected with his work within the meaning of Section 443.06(1), Florida Statutes (1975).
In the final analysis the issue before the appeals referee was whether petitioner was justified in refusing to follow his employer’s instructions to drive the overnight trip. If as petitioner testified, his vision was defective thus making operation of a large truck in highway traffic dangerous to himself and others, then it would certainly appear petitioner was justified in refusing to undertake the trip. On the other hand, if petitioner’s sight was not defective then his refusal would constitute misconduct under the statute and the order denying benefits was proper. As stated previously, petitioner testified his peripheral vision was poor, and he felt incapable of driving large trucks on the highway for extended periods. No evidence to the contrary was adduced. The closest respondent came to contradicting petitioner’s testimony was a reference to petitioner having passed a vehicle lessor’s periodic eye test for drivers in 1974. Since the unemployment compensation act is to be construed liberally in favor of the claimant, Spaulding v. Florida Industrial Commission, 154 So. 2d 334 (Fla.3d DCA 1963), we conclude the evidence adduced in this case is insufficient to support the conclusion of the appeals referee and the Industrial Relations Commission.
However, the issue concerning petitioner’s peripheral vision and his ability to perform the task demanded by his employer can be readily determined by medical evidence. Accordingly, pursuant to the statu tory authority provided in Section 120.-68(13)(a)l, Florida Statutes (1975), we quash the order under review and remand the cause to the Industrial Relations Commission with directions to remand the cause to the appeals referee for the purpose of receiving additional evidence as to petitioner’s ability to drive on the highway with particular reference to his vision.
ANSTEAD and LETTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pascarelli v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 664 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…er infested area without protective gear); National Ins. Services, Inc. v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Com’n, 495 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (employees acted unreasonably in refusing to clean coffee area); Smallwood v. Florida Dep’t of Commerce, 350 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) (cause remanded for determination whether trucker who refused to drive at night impaired visually). It cannot be held unreasonable to refuse to perform an illegal act. Therefore, if it indeed was illegal to drive the truck on I-…
-
Ina M. Baeza v. PAN American/National Airlines, Inc., 392 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…proper construction of any provision of the chapter shall be resolved in favor of conformity with those requirements. The Unemployment Compensation Law should be liberally construed in favor of claimants. Smallwood v. Florida Department of Commerce, 350 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Fredericks v. Florida Department of Commerce, 323 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). Disqualifying provisions are to be narrowly construed. St. Joe Paper Co. v. Gautreaux, 180 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965). We are not unmindful of…
-
Nolan v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 680 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…employment benefits); Tannariello (worker who resigned employment which had required her to work alone in a vacant building in an unsavory neighborhood was entitled to unemployment compensation). See also Smallwood v. Florida Department of Commerce, 350 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) (order denying benefits reversed where claimant refused to drive a large truck on the highway on an overnight trip because he felt that his peripheral vision had deteriorated since cataract operations in both eyes). REVERSED and…
Authorities Cited
- Spaulding v. Fla. Indus. Comm'n & Onny Amon, Inc., 154 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)