SHARI L. KLEIN, APPELLANT,
v.
CHR ASSOCIATES, INC., AND FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the employee's actions did not rise to the level of 'misconduct' as defined by statute to bar unemployment benefits.
Shari Klein was awarded unemployment compensation after her termination from employment as an activities assistant. The employer appealed, and an appe…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Unemployment Compensation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Shari Klein, appeals from the appeals referee’s determination reversing the award of unemployment compensation to Klein. We reverse the referee’s determination and reinstate the award.
Shari Klein was employed as an activities assistant by CHR Associates, which operates a nursing home. After two years in that position, Klein’s employment was terminated. Klein filed for unemployment compensation, which was granted. CHR Associates appealed the award of unemployment compensation. The Unemployment Compensation Appeals Bureau’s referee reversed Klein’s award. Klein appeals.
This court must accept the findings of fact of the appeals referee, which are supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Section 120.68(10), Fla.Stat. (1989). The appeals referee concluded, however, that the actions that led to Klein’s dismissal constituted. “misconduct connected with her work.” If that were so, Klein could be denied unemployment compensation benefits. Section 443.101, Fla. Stat. (1989). But we are not persuaded that Klein’s actions rise to the level of “misconduct” within the intended meaning of section 443.036(26), Florida Statutes (1989), as to bar her from receiving unemployment benefits. See Daniels v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 531 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Langley v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 444 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Earp v. Florida Dep’t of Commerce Indus. Relations Comm’n, 241 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970).
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
LeMASTER v. Glock, Inc., 610 So. 2d 1336 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…s a matter of law are extremely limited. As has been recently stated, “the determination vel non of proximate cause as a matter of law is a policy decision ‘that the range of danger is too remote to be reasonably foreseeable.’ ” Hohn v. Amcar, Inc., 584 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 5th DCA1991). The danger of an individual being shot by someone inadvertently putting pressure on a gun’s trigger would not be a remote possibility. Of course, injury would be averted where the gun is equipped with an external safety, but only…
Authorities Cited
- Carlin W. Langley v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 444 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Daniels v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 531 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Earp v. Fla. Dep't OF Commerce Indus. Relations Comm'n & Best Sundries, Inc., 241 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)