PALMER v. REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE APPEALS COMMISSION (2021)

AFFIRMED. See Willick v. Unemplmt. App. Comm'n, 885 So. 2d 440, 442 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (“A claimant who leaves his or her employment voluntarily without good cause is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits.” (citing § 443.101(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2002))); Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, Citrus Cnty. v. Fla. Dep't of Com., Div. of Emp. Sec., 370 So. 2d 1209, 1211 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) (explaining that “[w]hen an employee, in the face of allegations of misconduct, chooses to leave his employment rather than exercise his right to have the allegations determined, such action supports a finding that the employee voluntarily left his job without good cause” and holding that “[t]he appeals referee is the factfinder in respect to unemployment compensation benefits, and where there is substantial, competent evidence to support his findings his decision must be upheld” (citing Dep't of Com. v. Dietz, 349 So. 2d 1226, 1228 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Quick v. N. Cent. Fla. Cmty. Mental Health Ctr., 316 So. 2d 301, 302 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975))); Contreras v. Reemployment Assistance Appeals Comm'n, 178 So. 3d 953, 955 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (recognizing that an appeals referee's findings in respect to unemployment compensation benefits “are to be accorded a presumption of correctness” (quoting Szniatkiewicz v. Unemplmt. App. Comm'n, 864 So. 2d 498, 501 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004))).

PER CURIAM.

LAMBERT, EISNAUGLE and HARRIS, JJ., concur.