IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA 
FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2004 
ACCORD HUMAN RESOURCES OF 
FLORIDA, III, INC., 
Appellant, 
v. CASE NO. 5D02-3511 
UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS 
COMMISSION, et al. 
Appellee. 
/ 
Opinion filed March 5, 2004. 
Administrative Appeal from the 
Unemployment Appeals Commission. 
James H. Fallace and Jesse L. Kabaservice 
of Fallace & Larkin, L.C., Melbourne, 
for Appellant. 
Christopher L. Nuland of Law Offices 
of Christopher L. Nuland, Jacksonville, 
for Appellee, Adam D. Koenigsberg, M.D. 
No Appearance for Appellee, Unemployment 
Appeals Commission. 
THOMPSON, J. 

Accord Human Resources of Florida, Inc, and Florida Eye Associates (collectively, the 
"employers"), the employers of Dr. Adam Koenigsberg, appeal a final order rendered by the
Unemployment Appeals Commission ("UAC") reversing an appeals referee's decision that Koenigsberg's 
termination was based on misconduct in connection with his employment. We affirm. 
The employers argue that in overturning the referee’s decision, the UAC reweighed the facts. We 
disagree. The referee determined: 
	The claimant was counseled on December 10, 2001, and instructed to 
	produce a written plan that would outline how the claimant would resolve 
	the problems occurring with co-workers. The claimant produced a letter 
	to the employer on 19 December 2001, that outlined several areas that he 
	felt were problems in the office and why he felt they were problems. The 
	claimant was informed on December 24, 2001, that the letter was not 
	sufficient and that he had until December 27, 2001, to produce the written 
	plan that had been ordered on December 10, 2001. On December 27, 
	2001, the claimant informed the employer that he was not going to 
	address the issues, in writing or verbal, without the advise [sic] of his 
	attorney. The claimant did not produce a plan. The claimant was 
	discharged on December 31, 2001, due to his failure to produce the 
	written plan of action. 
	* * * 
	The employer contends that there were a multitude of reasons for the 
	dismissal. However, the employer's testimony clearly showed that had the 
	claimant produced a plan of action, he would have continued his 
	employment. The other problems on the job may have contributed to the 
	decision to discharge. However, the referee has accepted the evidence 
	that the claimant was discharged due to his failure to produce a written 
	plan of action, as instructed by his employer, as reason for dismissal. 
(emphasis supplied). 

Based on the referee's specific findings of fact, that Koenigsberg was discharged from employment 
for failure to submit to a written corrective plan, the UAC concluded that the referee's decision was not in 
accordance with the law: 
	The claimant was discharged after he advised the employer that he would 
	not resubmit a written plan of action without the advice of his attorney.
	The referee held that the employer was within its right to require the 
	claimant to submit such a plan and concluded that the claimant was 
	insubordinate when he refused to produce the document. The record 
	reflects, however, that the claimant had provided a document in response 
	to the employer's first directive that his attempt was not acceptable, the 
	claimant asked for a few days' extension of the deadline to file his 
	response because his attorney was out of town on vacation. It was not 
	unreasonable for claimant to seek his attorney's advice; therefore, his 
	failure to resubmit the corrective action document was not an intentional 
	disregard of his duties and obligations to the employer amounting to 
	misconduct within the meaning of the law. 

As the above-quoted makes clear, the UAC accepted the referee's findings of fact, but disagreed 
regarding their legal effect. It was within the UAC's authority to reach a different conclusion of law. 
Szniatkiewicz v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 29 Fla. L. Weekly D161 (Fla. 4th DCA Jan. 7, 
2004). The UAC concluded that the failure to submit a written plan was not misconduct and that it was 
reasonable for Koenigsberg to refrain from submitting a plan until after he sought the advice of his attorney. 
The standard of review of a UAC’s interpretation of law is whether the interpretation is clearly erroneous, 
Romanenko v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 763 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), and in this 
instance, we find no error. 

In the alternative, the employers argue that Koenigsberg's conduct during the course of his 
employment was misconduct sufficient to warrant a denial of benefits. Essentially, this argument is a request 
that the referee's fact findings be rejected. While an agency may reject a hearing officer’s conclusions of 
law, neither an administrative agency nor a reviewing court may reject an administrative hearing officer's 
findings of fact as long as those findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence. Lucido v. 
Unemployment Appeals Commission, 862 So.2d 913 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). In Jackson v. Unemployment 
Appeals Commission, 730 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), this court stated that a reviewing court is to
determine: 
	Whether the referee's findings of fact were based on competent, 
	substantial evidence in the record and whether the proceedings on which 
	the findings were based complied with the essential requirements of the 
	law. In reviewing whether the record contains competent, substantial 
	evidence to support the appeals referee's findings, the reviewing court may 
	not make determinations as to credibility or substitute its judgment for that 
	of the referee. Thus, the appeals referee's decision must be upheld where 
	there is competent substantial evidence to support it. The basis for this is 
	that the hearing officer or appeals referee in an administrative proceeding 
	is the trier of fact, and he or she is privileged to weigh and reject 
	conflicting evidence. 
Id. at 721 (emphasis supplied). 

In the instant case, despite testimony that Koenigsberg was discharged not only for his failure to 
submit a corrective plan, but for numerous additional reasons, there was competent, substantial evidence 
supporting the referee's finding that Koenigsberg was discharged because he failed to submit a corrective 
plan. Although the evidence may have supported findings contrary to those made by the referee, the UAC 
and this court are bound by the referee's findings of fact and cannot reweigh evidence or substitute our own 
findings. Id.; Brown v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 820 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). 

Finally, the employers contend that they were denied due process because neither the attorney for 
one of the employers (Accord) nor the other employer (FEA) received notice of Koenigsberg's request 
for review by the UAC. We find this argument to be without merit because the UAC sent notice to 
Accord. Additionally, while section 443.151(4)(b)(1)-(3), Florida Statutes, requires appeals referees to 
provide notices of hearings, there is no similar requirement for the UAC. See § 443.151(4)(c), Fla. Stat. 
AFFIRMED.

MONACO, J., concurs. 
GRIFFIN, J., concurs specially in result only.