Stappenbeck v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stappenbeck v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission

832 So. 2d 945, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 19173, 2002 WL 31870529

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 26, 2002·No. No. 3D02-663·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the final order disqualifying the appellant from receiving unemployment benefits where there is substantial, competent record evidence to support the determination that he failed to follow the reasonable instructions of his employer, and was thus discharged for misconduct as defined by section 443.036(29), Fla. Stat. (2001). See Bozzo v. Safelite Glass Corp., 654 So.2d 1042, 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Brownstein v. Hartwell Enters., Inc., 647 So.2d 1004, 1005 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Rubido v. Brinks, Inc., 601 So.2d 1298, 1300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the final order disqualifying the appellant from receiving unemployment benefits where there is substantial, competent record evidence to support the determination that he failed to follow the reasonable instructions of his employer, and was thus discharged for misconduct as defined by section 443.036(29), Fla. Stat. (2001). See Bozzo v. Safelite Glass Corp., 654 So.2d 1042, 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Brownstein v. Hartwell Enters., Inc., 647 So.2d 1004, 1005 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Rubido v. Brinks, Inc., 601 So.2d 1298, 1300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).

Affirmed.

Stappenbeck v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 832 So. 2d 945, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 19173, 2002 WL 31870529 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

832 So. 2d 945 (Stappenbeck v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related