Hernandez v. Florida Orthopedics Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hernandez v. Florida Orthopedics Inc.

861 So. 2d 525, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 19534, 2003 WL 23008834

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 24, 2003

DocketNo. 3D03-475

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 861 So. 2d 525 (Hernandez v. Florida Orthopedics 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

Hernandez v. Florida Orthopedics Inc., 861 So. 2d 525, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 19534, 2003 WL 23008834 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Francis Hernandez (“Hernandez”) appeals a Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission’s affirmance of an appeals referee’s decision ’denying Hernandez unemployment benefits. The basis for the denial of benefits was “misconduct” connected to work. See § 443.036(29), Fla. Stat. (2002). Accepting the findings of fact made by the appeals referee, we conclude although Hernandez’s tardiness in reporting to work on several occasions was “more than sufficient cause to justify his termination from his job, it clearly does not rise to the level of ‘misconduct’ necessary so as to deprive him of unemployment benefits.” See Santiago v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 716 So.2d 350 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

Accordingly, we reverse the order below.

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

PER CURIAM.

Francis Hernandez (“Hernandez”) appeals a Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission’s affirmance of an appeals referee’s decision ’denying Hernandez unemployment benefits. The basis for the denial of benefits was “misconduct” connected to work. See § 443.036(29), Fla. Stat. (2002). Accepting the findings of fact made by the appeals referee, we conclude although Hernandez’s tardiness in reporting to work on several occasions was “more than sufficient cause to justify his termination from his job, it clearly does not rise to the level of ‘misconduct’ necessary so as to deprive him of unemployment benefits.” See Santiago v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 716 So.2d 350 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

Accordingly, we reverse the order below.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

861 So. 2d 525, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 19534, 2003 WL 23008834, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hernandez-v-florida-orthopedics-inc-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack