Roach v. Unemployment Appeals Commission

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Roach v. Unemployment Appeals Commission

873 So. 2d 617, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 7541, 2004 WL 1175168

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 28, 2004

DocketNo. 5D02-3831

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 873 So. 2d 617 (Roach 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

Roach v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 873 So. 2d 617, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 7541, 2004 WL 1175168 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

THOMPSON, J.

Soonja Roach appeals a final order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission (“UAC”), which affirmed the appeals referee’s ruling that Roach was disqualified from receiving benefits. The UAC adopted the referee’s findings that Roach voluntarily left her employment without [618]*618good cause attributable to the employer. We affirm.

Roach argues on appeal that she was forced to separate from the work place because of illness. She also contends that the referee was biased and did not give her proper instruction about process. Most important, she argues that she presented testimony and evidence to the hearing officer to support her position. We cannot review the contentions raised by Roach because she has neither provided a transcript, nor asked the UAC to provide the court with a transcript. Roach has the burden to demonstrate error. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1980) (holding that without a record of the trial proceedings, the court cannot properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court’s judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory). Because there is no transcript, we must assume that the referee’s finding that Roach left work voluntarily is supported by the evidence. See Fryburg v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 799 So.2d 281 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

AFFIRMED.

GRIFFIN and MONACO, JJ., concur.

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

THOMPSON, J.

Soonja Roach appeals a final order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission (“UAC”), which affirmed the appeals referee’s ruling that Roach was disqualified from receiving benefits. The UAC adopted the referee’s findings that Roach voluntarily left her employment without [618]*618good cause attributable to the employer. We affirm.

Roach argues on appeal that she was forced to separate from the work place because of illness. She also contends that the referee was biased and did not give her proper instruction about process. Most important, she argues that she presented testimony and evidence to the hearing officer to support her position. We cannot review the contentions raised by Roach because she has neither provided a transcript, nor asked the UAC to provide the court with a transcript. Roach has the burden to demonstrate error. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1980) (holding that without a record of the trial proceedings, the court cannot properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court’s judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory). Because there is no transcript, we must assume that the referee’s finding that Roach left work voluntarily is supported by the evidence. See Fryburg v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 799 So.2d 281 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

AFFIRMED.

GRIFFIN and MONACO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

873 So. 2d 617, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 7541, 2004 WL 1175168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roach-v-unemployment-appeals-commission-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack