Case Name: Jose R. MONTEAGUDO, Appellant, v. REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE APPEALS COMMISSION, et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2015-03-18
Citations: 159 So. 3d 386
Docket Number: Nos. 3D14-1551, 3D14-2109
Parties: Jose R. MONTEAGUDO, Appellant, v. REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE APPEALS COMMISSION, et al., Appellees.
Judges: Before, SUAREZ, LOGUE and SCALES, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 159
Pages: 386–387

Head Matter:
Jose R. MONTEAGUDO, Appellant, v. REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE APPEALS COMMISSION, et al., Appellees.
Nos. 3D14-1551, 3D14-2109.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
March 18, 2015.
Erwin Rosenberg, for appellant.
Louis A. Gutierrez, Assistant Court Chief, Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission (Tallahassee), for appellees.
Before, SUAREZ, LOGUE and SCALES, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Jose R. Monteagudo appeals to this Court from two separate, final administrative orders of the Florida Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission ("RAAC").
In Order No. 14-01733 (case no. 3D14-2109), RAAC, upholding a Referee's decision, found that Monteagudo did not qualify for unemployment benefits because he was not discharged from employment.
In Order No. 14-02313 (case no. 3D14-1551), RAAC, upholding a second Referee's decision, found that Monteagudo's appeal of the state's decision that Monteagu-do must repay to the state disqualified unemployment benefits in the amount of $1925 was properly dismissed.
We consolidate cases 3D14-2109 and 3D14-1551 for the purposes of this opinion. We find that both RAAC orders, and the factual findings underlying them, are supported by competent, substantial evidence. Therefore we must affirm. Heifetz v. Dep't. of Bus. Regulation, Div. of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, 475 So.2d 1277, 1281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Perez v. State, Dep't. of Labor and Employment Sec., Appeals Comm'n., 377 So.2d 806, 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) ("Our affirmance is based primarily upon the familiar principle that this court lacks the authority to interfere with an administrative decision based upon an acceptable view of the evidence."); § 120.68(7)(b), Fla. Stat. (2014).
Affirmed.