AYDEE TORRES, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION AND VALLS GROUP, INC., 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.
Torres appealed a denial of unemployment benefits by the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission. The Commission denied benefits because Torres was physically unable to work at the time of the hearing, failing to meet the statutory requirement that claimants be "able to work and available for work." The appellate court affirmed the denial but allowed Torres to reapply once she becomes able and available for work.
The Commission properly denied unemployment benefits because Torres failed to satisfy the statutory requirement that a claimant "is able to work and is available for work." Torres may reapply for benefits once she becomes physically able and available for work.
“in order to claim unemployment benefits, it is required that the claimant "is able to work and is available for work."”
The statutory requirement that Torres failed to satisfy, which is the basis for the denial of benefits.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTorres applied for unemployment benefits but was physically unable to work at the time of the hearing. She testified that she would not be able to res…
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 Unemployment Compensation Benefits Eligibility cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal of an order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission which upheld a denial of unemployment compensation benefits.
The appeals referee dismissed claimant-appellant Aydee Torres’ appeal as to certain of her earlier applications for benefits, on the ground that the appeal was not timely filed with regard to the earlier claims. The Unemployment Appeals Commission affirmed that ruling and we see no error. The Commission upheld the denial of benefits on the remaining claims because at the time of the hearing, the claimant was physically unable to work. The Commission states that under the statute, in order to claim unemployment benefits, it is required that the claimant “is able to work and is available for work.” § 443.091(1X0)1., Fla. Stat. (2007). The claimant testified that she would not be able to resume work until she had back surgery.
We affirm the Commission’s ruling. See Buns Unlimited of Fla., Inc., v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 508 So. 2d 786, 788 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). However, our affirmance is without prejudice to the claimant to reapply for benefits at such time as she is able and available for work, if at that time she is unable to obtain employment and qualifies under the statute.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Buns Unlimited OF Fla., Inc. v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 508 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)