BARBARA L. WILLIAMS, PETITIONER,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION, AND WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, RESPONDENTS
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.
Barbara Williams sought unemployment compensation after being discharged by Western Electric Company when she refused to submit to the employer's medical examination while recovering from an arm injury. The Florida District Court of Appeal held that an employee's reliance on her physician's medical advice not to return to work does not constitute misconduct justifying discharge or disqualification from unemployment benefits.
The court held that an employee is entitled to rely on the advice of her physician regarding her ability to work, and failure to submit to an employer's medical examination does not constitute misconduct connected with employment. Disqualification from unemployment benefits requires a showing of misconduct, and doubts regarding such misconduct must be resolved in favor of the claimant.
[1] An employee's failure to submit to examination by an employer's doctor does not constitute misconduct connected with work when the employee is relying on the bona fide ad…
[2] An employee is entitled to rely on the advice of her personal physician regarding her fitness to return to work.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The petitioner was entitled to rely on the advice of her physician as to whether her condition was such as to permit her to return to work.”
Establishes that an employee may rely on personal physician's medical judgment regarding work capacity.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams, employed by Western Electric, suffered an arm injury requiring cast treatment. When healing failed, she was hospitalized for scheduled surge…
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 Misconduct Connected With Work cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By petition for certiorari we have for review a decision of the Industrial Relations Commission, reversing a decision of an Appeals Referee which had upheld a determination of a Claims Examiner. The petitioner, Barbara Williams, employed by the respondent Western Electric Company, suffered an arm injury. The arm was treated and placed in a cast, and she continued working for a period. When the injury failed to heal, she was hospitalized for surgery, which was not performed as scheduled because of a certain condition of blood pressure instability. She was treated by her personal physician for the latter condition, and by an orthopedic surgeon who re-casted the arm and advised surgery when feasible, for relief of her pain. On re-examination by her physician he concluded that her condition still was such that surgery was not presently feasible, and that she should not return to work. She and her physician so informed her employer. The employer made several requests, during the times above mentioned, for the petitioner to submit to examination by the employer’s doctor. She did not comply therewith. Because of her failure to do so, the employer notified the employee that she was considered to have resigned.
In upholding the petitioner’s claim for unemployment compensation the Appeals Referee held:
“The record and evidence of the instant case clearly show that the claimant did not leave the employment of the employer-appellant of her own accord, but was discharged by the employer, effective May 31, 1974. It has been further shown that this discharge occurred at a time when the claimant was physically unable to work. Although the employer may have been convinced that the claimant had remained off of the job without a justifiable reason, her doctor has executed a certificate of examining physician, showing that she did not become able to work until September, 1974. The claimant’s failure to report for duty at a time when she was physically incapable of doing so, did not constitute a material breach of her duties and obligations arising out of the contract of hire. Accordingly, if should be held that the claimant was discharged by the employer-appellant, but not for misconduct connected with her work.” In reversing, the Industrial Relations Commission held the petitioner’s claim for benefits should he rejected because the petitioner had refused to comply with the request of the employer to submit to examination by its doctor, and stated: “Claimant may have been physically unable to work but she was not physically unable to see the employer’s doctor.”
The commission concluded that failure to submit to examination by the employer’s doctor constituted misconduct of the employee connected with her work, justifying her discharge.
We cannot agree. The petitioner was entitled to rely on the advice of her physician as to whether her condition was such as to permit her to return to work. There was no showing or indication in the record that the opinion or decision of her physician that she should not return to work was not bona fide, or validly made. We have been shown no law requiring the petitioner to submit to examination by her employer’s doctor in such circumstances, and that failure to do so would constitute misconduct depriving her of benefits under the statute. It was error for the commission to hold that her failure to submit to examination by the employer’s doctor amounted to misconduct connected with her work and furnished grounds for discharge.
Disqualification for benefits can result from misconduct connected with the work (§ 443.06 Fla.Stat., F.S.A.), but where doubts in that regard are nicely balanced, they are to be resolved in favor of the claimant. See Spaulding v. Florida Industrial Relations Commission, Fla.App. 1963, 154 So. 2d 334; Woskoff v. Desta Enterprises, Inc., Fla.App. 1966, 187 So. 2d 101.
Certiorari is granted, the decision of the Industrial Relations Commission is quashed, and the decision of the Appeals Referee is reinstated.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sheriff OF Monroe Cnty. v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Alfonso J. Madoz, 490 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…sts upon the employer or the employee. Cases then in existence held that when doubts as to misconduct are nicely balanced, they are to be resolved in favor of the claimant. Williams v. Florida Department of Commerce, Industrial Relations Commission, 326 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); see Woskoff v. Desta Enterprises, Inc., 187 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); Spaulding v. Florida Industrial Commission, 154 So. 2d 334, 339 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). In Williams, it was the employer who filed the appeal, and it is uncle…
-
Krueger v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 555 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…unty School Bd. v. Washington, 544 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Baeza v. Pan Am./Nat’l Air Lines, Inc., 392 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); City of Fort Lauderdale v. Fowler, 355 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Williams v. Fla., Dep’t of Commerce, 326 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). The record supports Ms. Krueger’s position that she believed her June 6, 1988, termination was inevitable, and that there was nothing more she could tell Ms. Men-nella at yet another pretermination hearing which would have preve…
-
NEW Mark Glen v. Hart, 442 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Williams v. Florida Department of Commerce, Industrial Relations Commission, 326 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). ANSTEAD, C.J., and DOWNEY and DELL, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Spaulding v. Fla. Indus. Comm'n & Onny Amon, Inc., 154 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Woskoff v. Desta Enters., Inc., 187 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)