MARIAM L. VAYVOSKI, APPELLANT,
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION AND JAY TOOL & DIE COMPANY, 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.
Appellant Vayvoski appealed her dismissal of an unemployment compensation claim on timeliness grounds. The court reversed the dismissal because the Commission failed to hold a hearing and provide due notice to resolve disputed factual questions about whether the appeal was timely filed under the 20-day statutory deadline.
The court held that the Commission erred in dismissing the appeal without affording appellant due notice of the jurisdictional timeliness question and an opportunity to be heard. A hearing must be held by the Commission or its designate to consider all relevant evidence regarding whether the notice was mailed more than 20 days before the appeal was filed.
[1] An appeal from an unemployment compensation determination must be filed within 20 days after the date of mailing of the notice of determination to the claimant's last kno…
[2] Appeals filed by mail in unemployment compensation cases are considered filed when deposited in a United States Postal Service receptacle, with the postmark serving as ev…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The claimant or any other party entitled to notice of a determination as herein provided may file an appeal from such determination with an appeals referee within 20 days after the date of mailing of the notice to his last known address or, if such notice is not mailed, within twenty days after the date of delivery of such notice.”
The governing statute establishing the 20-day deadline for filing unemployment compensation appeals.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant filed an appeal from a determination regarding unemployment compensation benefits. The referee dismissed the appeal as untimely. The Commiss…
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 Due Notice cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order of the Commission affirming a referee’s decision to dismiss appellant’s appeal as untimely. The appeal was taken by appellant as a claimant for unemployment compensation.
Section 443.151(4)(b)l, Florida Statutes (1982) provides:
The claimant or any other party entitled to notice of a determination as herein provided may file an appeal from such determination with an appeals referee within 20 days after the date of mailing of the notice to his last known address or, if such notice is not mailed, within twenty days after the date of delivery of such notice.
Rule 38E-5.05, Florida Administrative Code provides:
Appeals filed by mail shall be considered to have been filed when deposited in a receptacle of the United States Postal Service. The postmark shall be considered evidence of the date of posting.
The record is not clear regarding certain factual matters which are important to this case. In order for the appeal to have been properly dismissed it must appear that the notice mentioned in the statute was mailed more than twenty days before the appeal was filed in accordance with the administrative rule. In order to make such a factual determination it is necessary for the Commission, or its proper designate, to hold a hearing and consider all relevant evidence on this issue, after due notice is given to the claimant. Due notice was not given to appellant that there was a jurisdictional question to be heard and decided. Therefore, we quash the decision affirming the order dismissing the appeal and remand this matter for the hearing and such further proceedings as are warranted.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ORFINGER, C.J., and COWART, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Livingston v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & News & Sun-Sentinel Co., 620 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…PER CURIAM. The issue presented here is the same as that in Robinson v. Morrison, Inc., 501 So. 2d 1323 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), and Vayvoski v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 443 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), namely, whether the appellee commission should hold an evidentiary hearing to determine 'whether the appellant claimant received procedural due process. We reach the same conclusion as the above cases and reverse and remand with…
-
Algor v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Walgreen Drug Stores, 516 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…oper notice that he was entitled, under the rules governing unemployment appeals and in the best interests of justice, to a good cause hearing prior to that issue ultimately being reviewed by the UAC. See Vayvoski v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 443 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). We reiterate that claimant was advised of his right to appeal only. We conclude that without any doubt claimant should be accorded the opportunity to prove, if indeed he can, that he had good cause for not attending the second…