Legal Opinion

Thomas v. Precision Response

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided February 8, 2006No. 3D05-1921PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per 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…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Mason v. Load King Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 2000
  2. Stahl v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Com'nDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1987
  3. Gonzalez v. Master Flowers, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1992
  4. St. Augustine Church v. FLA. UNEMP. APP. COM'N.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2000
  5. Wallace v. ZAHN DENTAL COMPANY, INC.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1993

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Duran v. Florida Unemployment Appeals CommissionDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2012
  2. Vidal v. Florida Reemployment Assistance Appeals CommissionDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2012

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API