ACCORD HUMAN RESOURCES OF FL., III, INC. v. Unemployment Appeals Com'n
Docket: 5D02-3511
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; March 4, 2004; Florida; State Appellate Court
Accord Human Resources of Florida, Inc. and Florida Eye Associates appeal a ruling from the Unemployment Appeals Commission (UAC) that reversed an appeals referee's finding that Dr. Adam Koenigsberg's termination constituted misconduct. The employers argue the UAC improperly reweighed the facts, but the court disagrees. The referee found that Koenigsberg was instructed to submit a written plan to address workplace issues by December 27, 2001, but failed to do so, opting instead to seek legal counsel prior to compliance. He was discharged on December 31, 2001, for this failure. The employers claimed multiple reasons for the dismissal, yet their testimony indicated that a submitted plan would have allowed Koenigsberg to retain his job. The UAC agreed with the referee's factual findings but concluded that Koenigsberg's actions did not amount to misconduct under the law, as it was reasonable for him to consult his attorney before submitting the required document. The court upheld the UAC's decision, finding no clear error in its legal interpretation. Employers argue that Koenigsberg's conduct during his employment constituted misconduct justifying a denial of benefits, effectively requesting rejection of the referee's findings. An agency can reject a hearing officer's legal conclusions but cannot dismiss findings of fact if supported by competent, substantial evidence, as established in Lucido v. Unemployment Appeals Commission. The court in Jackson v. Unemployment Appeals Commission emphasized that a reviewing court must assess whether these findings are based on substantial evidence and whether legal requirements were met during proceedings, without questioning credibility or substituting judgment. In this case, despite conflicting testimonies regarding Koenigsberg's discharge, substantial evidence supported the finding that he was terminated for failing to submit a corrective plan. The court must uphold the referee's findings of fact and cannot reweigh evidence. The employers also claimed a due process violation due to lack of notice regarding Koenigsberg's review request; however, this was deemed meritless since notice was sent to one employer, Accord, and there is no statutory requirement for UAC to provide notice. The decision was affirmed, with Monaco and Griffin concurring.