Fish v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission
This text of 802 So. 2d 1201 (Fish v. Florida 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.
Opinion
In this appeal from the denial of unemployment compensation benefits, John D. Fish argues that the Unemployment Appeals Commission erred in upholding the referee’s decision that he had not been “paid wages for insured work equal to 1.5 times ... his high quarter wages during ... his base period.” § 443.091(1)©, Fla. Stat. (2000). The referee rejected his argument that income he realized in a single quarter from exercising stock options he had received as remuneration for employment should be excluded from his wages, as defined in section 443.036(40)(a), Flprida Statutes (2000).
On appeal, he explicitly abandons this argument in favor of an argument that his income from exercising stock options should be prorated over the whole time he was employed or, at least, over the life of the options. But this latter argument is not cognizable on appeal even to the Commission because it was not presented to the referee. See Fla. Admin. Code. R. 38E-3.002(1). Without reaching the merits of Mr. Fish’s contentions, we are; therefore, constrained to affirm.
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
802 So. 2d 1201, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 75, 2002 WL 15566, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fish-v-florida-unemployment-appeals-commission-fladistctapp-2002.