Smith v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Smith v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission

619 So. 2d 519, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6503, 1993 WL 210582

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 18, 1993

DocketNo. 92-1360

StatusPublished

This text of 619 So. 2d 519 (Smith 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

Smith v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 619 So. 2d 519, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6503, 1993 WL 210582 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

ERVIN, Judge.

Appellant, Deborah K. Smith, appeals an order entered by appellee, the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, in which she was disqualified for a specific period of time from receiving unemployment compensation benefits for the reason that she failed to establish good cause for refusing “suitable work” offered to her. See § 443.-101(2), Fla.Stat. (1991). In determining the [520]*520suitability of work, the Division of Unemployment Compensation (Division) must consider the statutory factors contained in Section 443.101(2), Florida Statutes (1991). Because the Division failed to present any evidence to contradict appellant’s evidence regarding these statutory factors, this case is controlled by Macdonald, v. Florida Department of Labor & Employment Security, Unemployment Appeals Commission, 568 So.2d 1319 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).

We therefore REVERSE and REMAND with directions to qualify appellant for benefits for the specified period in dispute.

WOLF, J., and SHIVERS, Senior Judge, concur.

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

ERVIN, Judge.

Appellant, Deborah K. Smith, appeals an order entered by appellee, the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, in which she was disqualified for a specific period of time from receiving unemployment compensation benefits for the reason that she failed to establish good cause for refusing “suitable work” offered to her. See § 443.-101(2), Fla.Stat. (1991). In determining the [520]*520suitability of work, the Division of Unemployment Compensation (Division) must consider the statutory factors contained in Section 443.101(2), Florida Statutes (1991). Because the Division failed to present any evidence to contradict appellant’s evidence regarding these statutory factors, this case is controlled by Macdonald, v. Florida Department of Labor & Employment Security, Unemployment Appeals Commission, 568 So.2d 1319 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).

We therefore REVERSE and REMAND with directions to qualify appellant for benefits for the specified period in dispute.

WOLF, J., and SHIVERS, Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

619 So. 2d 519, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6503, 1993 WL 210582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-florida-unemployment-appeals-commission-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack