Romanenko v. Unemployment Appeals Commission

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Romanenko v. Unemployment Appeals Commission

763 So. 2d 1288, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 10942, 2000 WL 1205625

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 25, 2000

DocketNo. 5D00-285

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 763 So. 2d 1288 (Romanenko 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

Romanenko v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 763 So. 2d 1288, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 10942, 2000 WL 1205625 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

GRIFFIN, J.

Appellant, Ken L. Romanenko [“Roman-enko”], appearing pro se, has appealed an order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission [“UAC”] affirming a referee’s decision denying him unemployment compensation. The referee’s factual findings cannot be disturbed as long as they are supported by competent, substantial evidence, no matter whether there is other evidence which would support a different result. Fanelli v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 711 So.2d 237 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Corman v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 687 So.2d 963 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Likewise, the UAC’s interpretation of the law cannot be overturned by this court unless it is clearly erroneous. Brooks v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 695 So.2d 879 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Because our review of the record shows there is competent, substantial evidence to support the determination that Romanenko engaged in misconduct connected with his work, which resulted in his discharge, we must affirm the denial of benefits.

AFFIRMED.

HARRIS and PETERSON, JJ„ concur.

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

GRIFFIN, J.

Appellant, Ken L. Romanenko [“Roman-enko”], appearing pro se, has appealed an order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission [“UAC”] affirming a referee’s decision denying him unemployment compensation. The referee’s factual findings cannot be disturbed as long as they are supported by competent, substantial evidence, no matter whether there is other evidence which would support a different result. Fanelli v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 711 So.2d 237 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Corman v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 687 So.2d 963 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Likewise, the UAC’s interpretation of the law cannot be overturned by this court unless it is clearly erroneous. Brooks v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 695 So.2d 879 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Because our review of the record shows there is competent, substantial evidence to support the determination that Romanenko engaged in misconduct connected with his work, which resulted in his discharge, we must affirm the denial of benefits.

AFFIRMED.

HARRIS and PETERSON, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

763 So. 2d 1288, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 10942, 2000 WL 1205625, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/romanenko-v-unemployment-appeals-commission-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack