JERRY LEE OSBORNE, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION AND INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHY, 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.
Jerry Lee Osborne appeals the Unemployment Appeals Commission's affirmation of his unemployment benefits claim dismissal after he voluntarily withdrew his appeal during a hearing. The court affirms, holding that Osborne's explicit statement to dismiss the proceedings constituted a valid withdrawal and his subsequent request for reinstatement failed because he did not demonstrate the withdrawal resulted from misinformation or coercion.
The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Osborne's statement and departure from the hearing constituted a valid voluntary withdrawal of his appeal under Florida Administrative Code Rule 38E-5.022. The court further held that even if the reinstatement rule had been properly invoked, Osborne failed to demonstrate that his withdrawal resulted from misinformation or coercion as required by Rule 38E-5.017(3).
[1] An unemployment compensation appeal may be voluntarily withdrawn by an appellant's oral statement on the record during an evidentiary hearing.
[2] An appeals referee may dismiss an unemployment compensation appeal upon the claimant's voluntary withdrawal.
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 has stormed out of the room, and I will take this as a withdrawal because he didn't want to go further with these proceedings.”
The appeals referee's finding documenting the claimant's voluntary withdrawal based on his explicit statement and departure
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOsborne filed for unemployment benefits after being terminated by International Typography Services, Inc. The employer reported that Osborne voluntari…
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 Reinstatement Of Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The claimant appeals an order entered by the Unemployment Appeals Commission affirming dismissal of his proceeding for unemployment compensation before the appeals referee and denying a motion to reinstate the proceeding. We affirm.
The claimant filed a claim for unemployment benefits after the termination of his employment with International Typography Services, Inc. Upon the request of the Division of Unemployment Compensation for information on the reason for Osborne’s termination, the employer advised that the claimant had voluntarily quit his employment. The division’s examiner determined the claimant had voluntarily left his employment without good cause attributable to his employer and was therefore disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits. The claimant timely appealed that determination following which an evidentiary hearing was set before an appeals referee. During that proceeding the claimant stated: “I want to drop all proceedings.” As a consequence, the referee entered the following finding: “The claimant has stormed out of the room, and I will take this as a withdrawal because he didn’t want to go further with these proceedings.” The referee then entered a decision dismissing claimant’s appeal as being voluntarily withdrawn.
The claimant timely appealed the dismissal decision to the Unemployment Appeals Commission which affirmed the appeals referee’s decision relying upon Rule 38E-5.022, Florida Administrative Code which provides for an appellant’s oral withdrawal of appeal at the time of the hearing, when made on the record and followed by the appeals referee’s written decision dismissing the appeal.
Subsequently, appellant petitioned the commission for what was in effect reinstatement of his appeal. To that end, he asserted that his employer had given misinformation to the division regarding the circumstances surrounding his separation from employment. We conclude that regardless of the validity of that assertion, it is of no aid to appellant in his effort to have his claim reinstated. Rule 38E-5.-017(3) of the Florida Administrative Code provides for the discretionary reinstatement of an appeal by the referee where the referee is petitioned to reinstate the claim and where the withdrawal request was made as a result of misinformation or coercion. This rule was not strictly applicable to the present case because appellant petitioned the commission rather than the referee. Nonetheless, had the appeal been properly presented to the appeals referee, it would have been unavailing to this claimant because he did not show that he was lulled into dismissing his appeal by misinformation or coercion.
Accordingly, the decision of the commission is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Riegler v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 633 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…d subsequent to July 5, 1992. Although we are sympathetic to appellant’s position, we find nothing in the statutes or the case law to authorize a belated appeal. Appellant’s main argument relies on Osborn v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 548 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), rev. denied, 562 So. 2d 346 (Fla.1990), which allowed a discretionary reinstatement where the employee was lulled into dismissing an appeal by misinformation or coercion. But that is not the situation in this case where appellant…
-
Rouse v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Broward Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 728 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…eedings to receive the county’s evidence on the merits upon a finding of good cause for the employer’s nonappearance at the hearing, which was due to the misrouting of mail in the County’s offices. Cf. Osborne v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 548 So. 2d 700, 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); see also Gateway Am. Bank of Florida v. Lucky Jet Corp., 720 So. 2d 1141, 1142-43 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Finally, we find no error in the ILA.C.’s affirmance of the referee’s order of disqualification. There was competent, sub…
-
Telisa R. Pooser v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 838 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…reinstate her appeal. Finding no misinformation or coercion on the part of the appeals referee,1 the Commission denied reinstatement, and affirmed the withdrawal order. There is no error here. See Osborne v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 548 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), rev. denied, 562 So. 2d 346 (Fla.1990). On appeal to this court, Pooser claims she was fired by Planet Hollywood and initially denied benefits. That determination was reversed, but Pooser asserts she is not receiving benefits be…