McEnery v. Unemployment Appeals

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT MICHAEL J. McENERY, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION ) and NEWBERG IRRIGATION, INC., ) ) Appellees. ) ) _____________________________________ ) Opinion filed December 18, 2002. Appeal from the Unemployment Appeals Commission. Michael J. McEnery, pro se. John D. Maher, Deputy General Counsel, Unemployment Appeals Commission, Tallahassee, for Appellee UAC. No appearance for Appellee Newberg Irrigation, Inc. BLUE, Chief Judge. Case No. 2D01-5762 Michael J. McEnery appeals the denial of unemployment compensation benefits based on a finding that he voluntarily left his job without good cause. Because McEnery left work due to illness, which constitutes good cause, we reverse. The appeals referee found that McEnery resigned. We accept this finding because it was supported by competent, substantial evidence. See Sienkiewicz v. Intrepid Powerboats, Inc., 774 So. 2d 739, 740 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). If the employer meets the burden of showing an employee's voluntary departure, the employee must prove that he left for good cause in order to qualify for unemployment benefits. Lewis v. Lakeland Health Care Ctr., Inc., 685 So. 2d 876, 878 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Good cause "includes only such cause as is attributable to the employing unit or which consists of illness or disability of the individual requiring separation from his or her work." § 443.101(1)(a)(1), Fla. Stat. (2000). "[T]he law permits an illness . . . to be a good cause for voluntarily leaving a job." Lewis, 685 So. 2d at 879 (internal quotation marks omitted). Based on the competent, substantial evidence showing that McEnery left work because of illness, we reverse the denial of unemployment compensation benefits. Reversed and remanded. CASANUEVA and KELLY, JJ., Concur. -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.