Rosemarin v. State Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 712 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). · Go Syfert
Rosemarin v. State Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 712 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
1 citation event across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Harmon v. Unemployment Appeals Commission (fladistctapp, 2002-11-19)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Harmon v. Unemployment Appeals Commission
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Rosemarin v. State Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 712 So.2d 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Warren ROSEMARIN
v.
STATE of Florida UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, and Syntex Laboratories, Inc.
Nos. 97-1902, 97-3264.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Jun 17, 1998.
712 So. 2d 1188
Warren Rosemarin, Boca Raton, pro se., John D. Maher, Tallahassee, for Appellee State of Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission.
Glickstein, Goldenberg, Gross, Renee.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

We affirm the orders of the Unemployment Appeals Commission. Appellant ceased working for Syntex in November, 1994. From late 1994 until December 31, 1996, he received termination payments from Syntex of about $3,022.27 biweekly. From each check, Syntex deducted federal withholding and social security taxes and reported the payments as wages paid to the Division of Unemployment Compensation. In July, 1996, appellant began to receive a retirement pension from Syntex of $1,100.00 per month.

On December 2, 1996, appellant filed a claim for unemployment benefits as a result of his termination from a different[*1189] employer. The date of the claim created a “base period” of July 1, 1995 through June 30, 1996. See § 443.036(5), Fla. Stat. (1997). During the base period, appellant received $72,536.40. from Syntex. These payments constituted “wages” within the meaning of section 443.036(33)(a), Florida Statutes (1997). The pension benefit from Syntex exceeded the weekly benefit amount to which appellant was entitled. He was therefore disqualified from receiving benefits pursuant to section 443.101(8)(a), Florida Statutes (1997). We construe the term “base period employer” in section 443.101(8)(a) to mean an employer that pays section 443.036(33) “wages” to an employee during the base period.

AFFIRMED.

GLICKSTEIN and GROSS, JJ., and GOLDENBERG, RENEE, Associate Judge, concur.