With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 889 So.2d 933, 935 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Bagenstos v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 927 So.2d 153, 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Powell v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 886 So.2d 420 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Indeed, we must construe the statute in favor of Mr. McMillen. See Vilar, 889 So.2d at 935. As our precedent establishes, a single incident of poor judgment or loss of self-control by a longtime employee may not constitute misconduct under the statute. Id.; see also Bivens v. Trugreen LP, 845 So.2d 347, 348 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (reversing denial of benefits and holding claimant did not engage in misconduct by using profanity in one voice mail message to his supervisor and on one occasion on sales floor); Cullen v. Neighborly Senior Servs., Inc., 775 So.2d 392, 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (<HOLDING>). In assessing whether an employee’s use of

A: holding that isolated incident in which claimant raised voice at his supervisor in private office but in front of two other employees and possibly used profanity did not constitute misconduct sufficient to deny unemployment compensation benefits
B: holding that an isolated incident in which an employee used profanity in a telephone conversation with her supervisor did not constitute misconduct sufficient to cut off unemployment benefits
C: holding that claimants refusal to comply with supervisors order to perform production work did not constitute misconduct that would preclude award of unemployment compensation benefits as claimant had previously suffered from allergies from chemicals used in manufacturing department
D: holding that in absence of statute prohibiting recovery claimant may receive workers compensation and unemployment benefits simultaneously
A.