Thomas v. Precision Response

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Thomas v. Precision Response

920 So. 2d 703, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 1544, 2006 WL 288406

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 8, 2006

DocketNo. 3D05-1921

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 920 So. 2d 703 (Thomas v. Precision Response) 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

Thomas v. Precision Response, 920 So. 2d 703, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 1544, 2006 WL 288406 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Michelle Thomas appeals the denial of unemployment compensation benefits. In the present case conflicting testimony was offered by the parties. It was the responsibility of the referee to resolve the conflicts, which he did in this case in favor of the employer. See Wallace v. Zahn Dental Co., Inc., 618 So.2d 382 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). This court is not allowed to overturn the referee’s factual findings, as long as there was competent, substantial evidence at the hearing which supports the findings. See Gonzalez v. Master Flowers, Inc., 605 So.2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). As we see no legal basis on which to disturb the referee’s findings, the order is affirmed. See also Mason v. Load King Manufacturing Co., 758 So.2d 649 (Fla. 2000); St. Augustine Church v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commn., 754 So.2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Stahl v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commn., 502 So.2d 78 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Michelle Thomas appeals the denial of unemployment compensation benefits. In the present case conflicting testimony was offered by the parties. It was the responsibility of the referee to resolve the conflicts, which he did in this case in favor of the employer. See Wallace v. Zahn Dental Co., Inc., 618 So.2d 382 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). This court is not allowed to overturn the referee’s factual findings, as long as there was competent, substantial evidence at the hearing which supports the findings. See Gonzalez v. Master Flowers, Inc., 605 So.2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). As we see no legal basis on which to disturb the referee’s findings, the order is affirmed. See also Mason v. Load King Manufacturing Co., 758 So.2d 649 (Fla. 2000); St. Augustine Church v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commn., 754 So.2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Stahl v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commn., 502 So.2d 78 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

920 So. 2d 703, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 1544, 2006 WL 288406, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-precision-response-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack