Cuff v. Unemployment Appeals Commission

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cuff v. Unemployment Appeals Commission

837 So. 2d 606, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 1826, 2003 WL 354922

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 19, 2003

DocketNo. 2D02-4711

StatusPublished

This text of 837 So. 2d 606 (Cuff v. Unemployment Appeals Commission) 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

Cuff v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 837 So. 2d 606, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 1826, 2003 WL 354922 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

STRINGER, Judge.

Randy Cuff challenges an order disqualifying him from receiving unemployment compensation benefits because he refused suitable work. We affirm.

Carrie Mitchell, Senior Service Coordinator for A-l Temps, testified that Mr. Cuff was advised of three suitable positions but rejected each of them without good cause. Although Mr. Cuff disputes [607]*607the truthfulness and accuracy of Ms. Mitchell’s testimony, the appeals referee apparently found Ms. Mitchell credible and relied on her testimony in making his determination. This court may not substitute its judgment for that of the appeals referee as to the weight of evidence on disputed facts. § 120.68(7)(b), Fla. Stat. (2001); Doyle v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 635 So.2d 1028, 1030 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). The final order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission is supported by competent, substantial evidence and must therefore be affirmed.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.

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

STRINGER, Judge.

Randy Cuff challenges an order disqualifying him from receiving unemployment compensation benefits because he refused suitable work. We affirm.

Carrie Mitchell, Senior Service Coordinator for A-l Temps, testified that Mr. Cuff was advised of three suitable positions but rejected each of them without good cause. Although Mr. Cuff disputes [607]*607the truthfulness and accuracy of Ms. Mitchell’s testimony, the appeals referee apparently found Ms. Mitchell credible and relied on her testimony in making his determination. This court may not substitute its judgment for that of the appeals referee as to the weight of evidence on disputed facts. § 120.68(7)(b), Fla. Stat. (2001); Doyle v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 635 So.2d 1028, 1030 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). The final order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission is supported by competent, substantial evidence and must therefore be affirmed.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

837 So. 2d 606, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 1826, 2003 WL 354922, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cuff-v-unemployment-appeals-commission-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack