NORIEGA, CHOPP AND SCHATZ, P.A., APPELLANT,
v.
ELIZABETH PENA AND FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the Unemployment Appeals Commission did not abuse its discretion in denying the employer's motion for rehearing to introduce additional evidence and that the employer's failure to raise the notice of hearing issue below precluded review.
An employer appealed an order granting an employee unemployment compensation benefits, arguing the Commission erroneously denied a request to submit a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Preservation Of Error cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order of the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission granting appellee Elizabeth Pena unemployment compensation benefits pursuant to her claim against her employer, Noriega, Chopp and Schatz, P.A., for wrongfully discharging her from her job as receptionist. Appellant contends that the Unemployment Appeals Commission erroneously denied its request to submit additional evidence after the Commission had entered its order in favor of the appellee, and that the notice of hearing of the Appeals Referee was insufficient in that it provided for less time than required by the Rules of the Department of Labor and Employment Security, Unemployment Appeals Commission.
We hold that there was no abuse of discretion shown in the Commission’s denial of the employer’s motion for rehearing for the purpose of introducing additional evidence. It appears from the record that the employer neither requested nor suggested that a continuance of the hearing be granted for the purpose of presenting additional evidence. The request for a rehearing was made after the Appeals Referee had issued a decision granting benefits to the employee. Accordingly, the Commission did not abuse its discretion in denying the employer’s request to be allowed to introduce additional evidence under the facts and circumstances as appear from the record. See Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.G. Co., Inc., 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); section 443.151(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1981).
As to the notice of hearing complained of, we hold that no reversible error has been made to appear. Appellant’s failure to raise this issue before either the Appeals Referee or the Commission precludes further review. Scott v. Florida Department of Commerce, Division of Employment Security, 353 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hollie E. Hale v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 920 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…by Lobb because he has failed to submit a record sufficient to demonstrate any error or inequity and has failed to articulate any basis to conclude that relief might be war [*164] ranted.” (footnote omitted)); Noriega, Chopp & Schatz, P.A. v. Pena, 417 So. 2d 312, 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (“We hold that there was no abuse of discretion shown in the Commission’s denial of the employer’s motion for rehearing for the purpose of introducing additional evidence. It appears from the record that the employer neither…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Dep't OF Transp. v. J. W. C. Co., Inc., 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Ossie Mae Scott v. Fla. Dep't OF Commerce, 353 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)