Mattioli v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mattioli v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission

613 So. 2d 144, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 1856, 1993 WL 36274

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 17, 1993

DocketNo. 92-1416

StatusPublished

This text of 613 So. 2d 144 (Mattioli 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.

Bluebook

Mattioli v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 613 So. 2d 144, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 1856, 1993 WL 36274 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the order of the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission upholding an appeals referee’s order recommending denial of unemployment benefits to appellant. She claims that she left her employment for good cause. However, appellant ignores the fact that the appeals referee rejected her testimony in favor of the employer’s testimony sur[145]*145rounding the events leading up to appellant’s separation from employment. The appeals referee was free to weigh the conflicting evidence adduced at the hearing, and judge the credibility of the witnesses. Andrus v. Florida Dept. of Labor and Employment Security, 379 So.2d 468 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); David Clark & Associates, Inc. v. Kennedy, 390 So.2d 149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). The appeals referee resolved the conflict in the testimony in favor of the employer. There was competent substantial evidence in the record to support the finding. Thus, it should not be disturbed on appeal. Continental Baking Co. v. Vilchez, 219 So.2d 733 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). We therefore affirm.

ANSTEAD and WARNER, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the order of the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission upholding an appeals referee’s order recommending denial of unemployment benefits to appellant. She claims that she left her employment for good cause. However, appellant ignores the fact that the appeals referee rejected her testimony in favor of the employer’s testimony sur[145]*145rounding the events leading up to appellant’s separation from employment. The appeals referee was free to weigh the conflicting evidence adduced at the hearing, and judge the credibility of the witnesses. Andrus v. Florida Dept. of Labor and Employment Security, 379 So.2d 468 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); David Clark & Associates, Inc. v. Kennedy, 390 So.2d 149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). The appeals referee resolved the conflict in the testimony in favor of the employer. There was competent substantial evidence in the record to support the finding. Thus, it should not be disturbed on appeal. Continental Baking Co. v. Vilchez, 219 So.2d 733 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). We therefore affirm.

ANSTEAD and WARNER, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

613 So. 2d 144, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 1856, 1993 WL 36274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mattioli-v-florida-unemployment-appeals-commission-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack