Kozich v. Unemployment Appeals Commission

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kozich v. Unemployment Appeals Commission

676 So. 2d 487, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 6536, 1996 WL 332955

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 19, 1996

DocketNo. 95-0700

StatusPublished

This text of 676 So. 2d 487 (Kozich 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

Kozich v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 676 So. 2d 487, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 6536, 1996 WL 332955 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. There is record support for the hearing officer’s finding that, at the relevant time, Appellant was performing services to Appellee as an independent contractor and not as an employee. We do not address Appellant’s earlier employment status as the “qualifying agent” for the Appellee/general contractor, as the record reflects that Appellant had earlier resigned that position.

We also find no merit in Appellant’s other arguments, including that the hearing officer erred by not applying collateral estoppel to bar any claim that Appellant was not an employee because a trial court, in a separate and independent proceeding, had issued a temporary injunction preventing Appellant’s filing claims of lien against Appellee’s purchasers. It does not appear that Appellant’s employment status was at issue or litigated in that case. See Stevens v. Len-Hal Realty, Inc., 403 So.2d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

DELL, STONE and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. There is record support for the hearing officer’s finding that, at the relevant time, Appellant was performing services to Appellee as an independent contractor and not as an employee. We do not address Appellant’s earlier employment status as the “qualifying agent” for the Appellee/general contractor, as the record reflects that Appellant had earlier resigned that position.

We also find no merit in Appellant’s other arguments, including that the hearing officer erred by not applying collateral estoppel to bar any claim that Appellant was not an employee because a trial court, in a separate and independent proceeding, had issued a temporary injunction preventing Appellant’s filing claims of lien against Appellee’s purchasers. It does not appear that Appellant’s employment status was at issue or litigated in that case. See Stevens v. Len-Hal Realty, Inc., 403 So.2d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

DELL, STONE and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

676 So. 2d 487, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 6536, 1996 WL 332955, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kozich-v-unemployment-appeals-commission-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack