Case Name: BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER, Appellant, v. Loraine F. STOLTE and Unemployment Appeals Commission, Department of Labor and Employment Security, State of Florida, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1985-09-10
Citations: 475 So. 2d 959
Docket Number: No. BD-431
Parties: BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER, Appellant, v. Loraine F. STOLTE and Unemployment Appeals Commission, Department of Labor and Employment Security, State of Florida, Appellees.
Judges: JOANOS, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 475
Pages: 959–963

Head Matter:
BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER, Appellant, v. Loraine F. STOLTE and Unemployment Appeals Commission, Department of Labor and Employment Security, State of Florida, Appellees.
No. BD-431.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Sept. 10, 1985.
Eric J. Holshouser of Coffman, Coleman, Henley & Andrews, Jacksonville, for appellant.
Geri Atkinson-Hazelton, Gen. Counsel, Unemployment Appeals Com’n, Dept, of Labor and Employment Sec., and Dorothea P. Scott, Tallahassee, for appellee Unemployment Appeals Com’n.

Opinion:
SHIVERS, Judge.
Baptist Medical Center appeals the award of unemployment compensation benefits to appellee Loraine F. Stolte. We reverse.
Ms. Stolte, a shift nurse, voluntarily left her full-time permanent employment and agreed to become a p.r.n. nurse at Baptist Medical Center for the express purpose of avoiding rotating shifts and weekend duty. In her November 3, 1981, contract with Baptist Medical Center she signified that she was available to work the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift only, with no weekend work indicated. A p.r.n. nurse is one who works as needed, or as the situation demands. The parties agreed that Stolte could accept or reject assignments without penalty.
Appellee Stolte worked steadily in 1981 and 1982. However, in November 1982, the patient census dropped and the p.r.n. use was minimal. Ms. Stolte worked for another employer on a p.r.n. basis from January 1983 to April 1983. In May 1983 appellee Stolte came back to Baptist Medical Center and worked for awhile.
In late October and November 1983, the patient census at Baptist Medical Center declined and, concomitantly, the need for p.r.n. personnel diminished to the point where there was no employment for Stolte. She was offered 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. work at one point, which she declined, because she said that her night vision was poor. She also refused pediatric work, which she stated she was not qualified to perform.
In March 1984, she filed an unemployment compensation claim which revealed that in the prior one year base period she had earned approximately $18,000. The
record also reflects that by June 21, 1984, Stolte had accepted employment with another employer which required occasional weekend duty.
The appeals referee concluded that as a matter of law the claimant was available for work.
Section 443.091(l)(c)l, Fla.Stat., and Rule 38B-2.19(3)(b), FAC, provide:
443.091 Benefit eligibility conditions.
(1) An unemployed individual shall be eligible to receive benefits with respect to any week only if the division finds that:
(c) 1. He is able to work and is available for work.
Rule 38B-2.19 Able and Available.
(3) A claimant must be able to work and be available for work each day of a customary work week which falls within the week for which a claim is filed. A customary work week shall be deemed to be the customary work week for the industry or occupation in which the individual is seeking employment.
(b) Available for Work. A claimant must be ready and willing to accept suitable employment. A claimant must maintain a continued and current attachment to the labor market without undue restrictions which would prevent him from accepting employment. In determining whether a claimant has met the availability requirement, the Division shall consider the following:
1. Restrictions imposed by the claimant regarding wages, hours, place and type of work. Such restrictions would not be a basis for denying benefits provided they are reasonable and follow logically from a claimant's training, experience, and past work history. Any restrictions should further be considered in light of the economic state of the claimant's labor market area.
3. Personal responsibilities or circumstances which would limit or restrict an individual from conducting an active work search or from working normal or customary hours.
The referee's conclusion directly conflicts with the holding in North Miami General Hospital, Inc. v. Plaza, 432 So.2d 723 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). That case, citing Florida Industrial Commission v. Ciarlante, 84 So.2d 1 (Fla.1955), stated that a person who "works only when she wants to is not 'available for work'.... " We are presented with that identical situation here. In both cases claimants worked for hospitals and turned down opportunities for employment. Both claimants were able to accept or reject offers to work without penalty.
We conclude that appellee Stolte was ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits and that the Commission erroneously interpreted the law.
REVERSED.
JOANOS, J., concurs.
ERVIN, J., dissents with opinion.