IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA 
FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2004 
DENISE SCHOLZ, 
Appellant, 
v. CASE NO. 5D03-1997 
UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, 
Appellee. 
/ 
Opinion filed April 8, 2004. 
Administrative Appeal from the 
Unemployment Appeals Commission. 
Adrienne E. Trent and Wayne L. Allen 
of Wayne L. Allen & Associates, P.A., 
Melbourne, for Appellant. 
Therese Pine, Senior Attorney, Unemployment Appeals 
Commission, Tallahassee, for Appellee. 
THOMPSON, J. 

Denise Scholz appeals an order by the Unemployment Appeals Commission ("UAC") affirming 
the denial of unemployment benefits by preventing Scholz from backdating her unemployment benefits 
claim. We affirm. 

After an administrative hearing, the appeals referee found: 
	The claimant filed her initial claim for unemployment
	compensation benefits effective September 23, 2001. 
	The claimant's benefits expired on September 22, 2002. 
	The claimant went into the "one stop" career center on 
	September 24, 2002, and spoke with an employee. The 
	employee did not tell the claimant she could not file her 
	claim, and the claimant did not ask the employee if she 
	could file her claim at that time. The claimant was told 
	that she needed to earn three times the weekly benefit 
	amount to qualify for receiving benefits. The claimant did 
	not file her claim at that time because she believed she 
	needed to earn three times the benefit amount to file her 
	claim. The claimant filed her claim on October 19, 2002, 
	when she earned three times her weekly benefit amount. 
The referee concluded: 
	The record reflects that the claimant filed her claim for 
	benefits on October 19, 2002. There is not evidence in 
	the record to support a finding that the claimant filed a 
	claim before October 13, 2002, or was stopped by the 
	Agency from filing her claim. The claimant was not given 
	misinformation from the Agency pertaining to filing her 
	claim. Accordingly, the claimant is ineligible for 
	backdating from September 22, 2002, through October 
	12, 2002. 

Scholz contends that she did not file her claim in a timely manner because of conflicting information 
provided by agency employees, warranting a reversal of the referee's decision. An administrative agency's 
findings should not be disturbed on appeal if those findings are supported by competent, substantial 
evidence, Gfrorer v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 864 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), and 
we conclude that the referee's findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence. Scholz cites 
Curtis v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 784 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) and Dines 
v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 730 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), and argues that
she should not be denied benefits due to the wrongful actions of the agency's employees, but these cases 
are distinguishable. The claimants in the cited cases were excused from the agency requirements because 
they were told erroneously that they no longer qualified for benefits. However, in the instant case, Scholz 
was not given inaccurate information. She was told that she needed to make three times her benefit amount 
to qualify, but she neglected to ask if she was still eligible to re-file her claim. 

AFFIRMED. 
PETERSON and MONACO, JJ., concur.