Williams v. Florida Dept. of Commerce, Indus. Relations Commission, 75--1486

• Decision Date: 03 February 1976
• Docket Number: No. 75--1486,75--1486
• Citation: 326 So.2d 237
• Parties: Barbara L. WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION, and Western Electric Company, Respondents.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 237

326 So.2d 237

Barbara L. WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION, and Western Electric Company, Respondents.

No. 75--1486.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 3, 1976.

Linsey Moore, Legal Services of Greater Miami, for petitioner.

Kenneth H. Hart, Jr., Tallahassee, and James R. Parks, Miami, for respondents.

Before PEARSON and NATHAN, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.

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...