Hidalgo v. Keys Granite, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hidalgo v. Keys Granite, Inc.

889 So. 2d 122, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 17940, 2004 WL 2727755

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 24, 2004·No. No. 3D04-795·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Daniel Hidalgo appeals the denial of unemployment compensation benefits. In the present case conflicting testimony was offered by the parties. It was the responsibility of the referee to resolve the conflicts, which he did in this case in favor of the employer. See Wallace v. Zahn Dental Co., Inc., 618 So.2d 382 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). This court is not allowed to overturn the referee’s factual findings, as long as there was competent, substantial evidence at the hearing which supports the findings. See Gonzalez v. Master Flowers, Inc., 605 So.2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). As we see no legal basis on which to disturb the referee’s findings, the order is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Daniel Hidalgo appeals the denial of unemployment compensation benefits. In the present case conflicting testimony was offered by the parties. It was the responsibility of the referee to resolve the conflicts, which he did in this case in favor of the employer. See Wallace v. Zahn Dental Co., Inc., 618 So.2d 382 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). This court is not allowed to overturn the referee’s factual findings, as long as there was competent, substantial evidence at the hearing which supports the findings. See Gonzalez v. Master Flowers, Inc., 605 So.2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). As we see no legal basis on which to disturb the referee’s findings, the order is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Hidalgo v. Keys Granite, Inc., 889 So. 2d 122, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 17940, 2004 WL 2727755 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

889 So. 2d 122 (Hidalgo v. Keys Granite, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related