Jose R. Monteagudo v. Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission, et al.
Nos. 3D14-2109 and 3D14-1551
Third District Court of Appeal, State of Florida
March 18, 2015
State of Florida
Opinion filed March 18, 2015.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
Nos. 3D14-2109 and 3D14-1551
Lower Tribunal Nos. 14-1733 and 14-2313
________________
Jose R. Monteagudo,
Appellant,
vs.
Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission, et al.
Appellees.
Appeals from the Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission.
Erwin Rosenberg, for appellant.
Louis A. Gutierrez, Assistant Court Chief, Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission (Tallahassee), for appellees.
Before, SUAREZ, LOGUE and SCALES, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In Order No. 14-01733 (case no. 3D14-2109), RAAC, upholding a Referee’s decision, found that Monteagudo did not qualify for unemployment benefits because he was not discharged from employment.
In Order No. 14-02313 (case no. 3D14-1551), RAAC, upholding a second Referee’s decision, found that Monteagudo’s appeal of the state’s decision that Monteagudo must repay to the state disqualified unemployment benefits in the amount of $1925 was properly dismissed.
We consolidate cases 3D14-2109 and 3D14-1551 for the purposes of this opinion. We find that both RAAC orders, and the factual findings underlying them, are supported by competent, substantial evidence. Therefore we must affirm. Heifetz v. Dep’t. of Bus. Regulation, Div. of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, 475 So. 2d 1277, 1281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Perez v. State, Dep’t. of Labor and Employment Sec., Appeals Comm’n., 377 So. 2d 806, 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (“Our affirmance is based primarily upon the familiar principle that this court lacks the authority to interfere with an administrative decision based upon an acceptable view of the evidence.“);
Affirmed.