NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING 
MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 
OF FLORIDA 
SECOND DISTRICT 
CHERYL L. SMITH, )
) 
Appellant, )
) 
v. ) Case No. 2D04-286 
) 
UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS ) 
COMMISSION and MEASE MANOR, INC., )
) 
Appellees. ) 
) 
Opinion filed February 2, 2005. 
Appeal from the Unemployment Appeals 
Commission. 
J. Robert McCormack of Persante & McCormack, 
P.A., Clearwater, for Appellant. 
Louis A. Gutierrez, Senior Attorney, Tallahassee, 
for Appellee Unemployment Appeals 
Commission. 
No appearance for Appellee Mease Manor, Inc. 
STRINGER, Judge. 

We reverse the denial of Cheryl Smith’s unemployment benefits because 
the appeal referee’s finding in the recommended order that she was terminated for 
misconduct was not supported by competent, substantial evidence. 

Smith commenced employment with Mease Manor, Inc., as a certified 
nursing assistant on November 16, 2000, and satisfactorily performed her duties at the 
assisted living facility until August 2003. On August 1, 2003, Smith was responsible for 
the well-being of a hospice patient suffering from congestive heart failure. She 
observed that the patient was very anxious, unable to sit still, and had become short of 
breath. Concerned, Smith sought a licensed practical nurse (“LPN”) to administer the 
patient’s prescribed anti-anxiety medication, Xanax. Indicating that the patient’s blood 
pressure was too low, the LPN did not administer the medication. The patient asked for 
her pills several times before she died. 

Smith expressed her lack of understanding about why something could 
not have been done for the patient. Over the next several days Smith spoke to nurses 
in the staff lunchroom and received responses that the patient could have been 
administered Xanax. Smith believed that the patient died in agony and that something 
could have been done to allow her to die peacefully. 
About a week later the Director of Nursing heard a rumor that the LPN had 
allowed the patient to die in agony and traced the rumor to its source. The 
Administrator testified that Smith admitted making the statements and expressed her 
concern about the incident. 

Mease Manor discharged Smith on August 15, 2003, for spreading rumors 
about how a LPN handled the patient’s death. It contended that Smith’s statements 
violated the employer’s Code of Ethics and HIPAA regulations. 

Smith explained at the evidentiary hearing that she discussed with other 
nurses her misunderstanding about the refusal to medicate the patient. After her unit 
manager returned from vacation a week later, she reported the incident to her. 
The referee made findings that Smith’s comments to her coworkers and 
unit manager that the LPN had allowed the patient to die in agony violated the 
employer’s Code of Ethics and HIPAA regulations. The referee concluded that Smith’s 
conduct instigated conflict on the job and spread disinformation that violated the 
employer’s rules and regulations. Further, Smith’s actions demonstrated a violation of a 
standard of behavior the employer had a right to expect and showed an intentional 
disregard of Smith’s duties and obligations to the employer. Thus the employer 
discharged Smith for misconduct connected with work, and she was not entitled to 
unemployment benefits. 

Section 443.036(29), Florida Statutes (2003), defines “misconduct” as: 
“Misconduct” includes, but is not limited to, the following, 
which may not be construed in pari materia with each other: 
	(a) Conduct demonstrating willful or wanton disregard of an 
	employer’s interests and found to be a deliberate violation or 
	disregard of the standards of behavior which the employer 
	has a right to expect of his or her employee; or 
	(b) Carelessness or negligence to a degree or recurrence 
	that manifests culpability, wrongful intent, or evil design or 
	shows an intentional and substantial disregard of the 
	employer’s interests or of the employee’s duties and 
	obligations to his or her employer. 

We cannot overturn the decision unless we determine there is a lack of 
competent, substantial evidence in the record to support its action. § 120.68(7)(b), Fla. 
Stat. (2003); Doyle v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 635 So. 2d 1028, 1030 
(Fla. 2d DCA 1994). It is well established that the unemployment statute must be
interpreted liberally in favor of an employee, and its disqualifying provisions construed 
narrowly in determining whether an employee has exhibited work-related misconduct 
sufficient to support a denial of unemployment compensation benefits. Frazier v. Home 
Shopping Club LP, 784 So. 2d 1190, 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Doyle, 635 So. 2d at 
1030-31. 

The employer has the burden of proving misconduct on the part of the 
employee. Id. However, even if the misconduct is serious enough to warrant discharge 
of the employee, it may not be sufficient to support the denial of unemployment 
compensation benefits. Barchoff v. Shells of St. Pete Beach, Inc., 787 So. 2d 935, 936 
(Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Isolated acts of poor judgment do not amount to misconduct. 
Clark v. Prof’l Call Ctrs., Inc., 743 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). 

Smith argues that the evidence was based exclusively on hearsay, but we 
determine that her admission to the Administrator was properly admitted under section 
90.803(18), Florida Statutes (2003). See Doyle, 635 So. 2d at 1032. Accepting, 
however, that she made the statements to her nursing coworkers, we are not persuaded 
that this incident alone merits a denial of unemployment benefits. Smith’s immediate 
supervisor was on vacation when the incident occurred. Thus she made inquiries of 
coworkers concerning the standard of care for this patient. Her concerns and 
comments expressed to coworkers do not transgress the employer’s concern that staff 
not discuss an individual’s care with others not involved. One could view her concern 
and questions for a dying patient’s care as commendable. 

Interpreting the statute liberally, as we must, and its disqualifying 
provisions narrowly, we conclude that the referee’s recommended order is not
supported by competent, substantial evidence of Smith’s alleged misconduct. We 
therefore reverse the Commission’s order and remand for entry of an order authorizing 
Smith to receive unemployment compensation benefits. 

SILBERMAN and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.