Casales v. Rezdrums 2 Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Casales v. Rezdrums 2 Inc.

939 So. 2d 1129, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 16636, 2006 WL 2819645

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 4, 2006

DocketNo. 3D06-729

StatusPublished

This text of 939 So. 2d 1129 (Casales v. Rezdrums 2 Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Casales v. Rezdrums 2 Inc., 939 So. 2d 1129, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 16636, 2006 WL 2819645 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Jorge Casales (“Casales”), appeals the Unemployment Appeals Commission’s order reversing the appeals referee’s decision to grant Casales unemployment benefits. We reverse.

We agree with the appeals referee that Casales’ actions amount to a good-faith error in judgment or discretion which is not deemed misconduct undpr section 443.101(1), Florida Statutes (2005). Further, the record fails to reveal competent substantial evidence that Casales’ single good-faith error in judgment was serious enough to warrant disqualification of benefits. See Garcia v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 923 So.2d 1193 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Jackson v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 730 So.2d 719 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Miller v. Barnett Bank of Broward County, 650 So.2d 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions to afford Casales the benefits he claimed.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Jorge Casales (“Casales”), appeals the Unemployment Appeals Commission’s order reversing the appeals referee’s decision to grant Casales unemployment benefits. We reverse.

We agree with the appeals referee that Casales’ actions amount to a good-faith error in judgment or discretion which is not deemed misconduct undpr section 443.101(1), Florida Statutes (2005). Further, the record fails to reveal competent substantial evidence that Casales’ single good-faith error in judgment was serious enough to warrant disqualification of benefits. See Garcia v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 923 So.2d 1193 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Jackson v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 730 So.2d 719 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Miller v. Barnett Bank of Broward County, 650 So.2d 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions to afford Casales the benefits he claimed.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

939 So. 2d 1129, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 16636, 2006 WL 2819645, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/casales-v-rezdrums-2-inc-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack