or not the claimant has left employment for good cause attributable to the employer and is entitled to unemployment compensation benefits is a mixed question of law and fact to the extent that, if competent substantial evidence is insufficient to support a factual finding then, as a matter of law, the unemployment appeals referee’s conclusion cannot stand. Mattice, 992 So.2d at 430-31 (citing Tourte v. Oriole of Naples, Inc., 696 So.2d 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)). The un-rebutted testimony was that Viera told bot .2d 1058, 1058 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (reversing because employer’s testimony completely failed to address, much less rebut, claimant’s testimony about the risk of person al injury in delivering a piano); Crosby v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 711 So.2d 260, 262 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (<HOLDING>); Chery v. Flagship Airlines, Inc., 692 So.2d
holding that if an employee reasonably refuses to perform a required act the employee is still eligible to receive unemployment compensation benefits holding that an employer is accountable to a discharged employee for unpaid compensation if the employee was terminated in bad faith and the compensation is clearly connected to work already performed holding that when an employee suffers an injury from an unexplained fall while the employee is on the job and performing the duties of his employment that injury is eligible for compensation under the workers compensation act holding that claimant may simultaneously receive unemployment benefits and workers compensation for temporary partial disability where statute only precludes receipt of workers compensation for temporary total or permanent total disability if claimant is receiving unemployment benefits holding that in absence of statute prohibiting recovery claimant may receive workers compensation and unemployment benefits simultaneously