LESTER R. FINNEY, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION AND GLADES A.C.T.S., INC., 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.
Finney appealed a dismissal of his unemployment benefits appeal by the Unemployment Appeals Commission for being filed outside the 20-day statutory deadline. The court reversed, holding that where a claimant disputes receipt of notice of the referee's decision, the commission must conduct an evidentiary hearing on the notice issue before dismissing the appeal, as summary dismissal denies due process.
The appeals commission lacked authority to summarily dismiss the appeal without first conducting an evidentiary hearing to determine whether notice was timely received. Where a claimant does not receive notice of the referee's decision within the statutory period, summary dismissal constitutes a denial of due process.
[1] An unemployment appeals commission must conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the mailing and receipt dates of a referee's decision when a claimant asserts they did…
[2] Summary dismissal of an unemployment benefits appeal for lack of jurisdiction, based on a presumed mailing date of notice, may constitute a denial of due process if the c…
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“where a claimant did not receive notice of the referee's decision, the commission's dismissal of the appeal constituted a denial of due process”
Establishes the due process principle that summary dismissal without hearing on notice receipt violates constitutional protections
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFinney applied for unemployment benefits after termination and had his claim approved by the claims examiner. The employer appealed, and a referee con…
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 Misconduct Connected With Work cases and more on FLexlaw
DELL, Judge.
Lester R. Finney appeals from an order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission that dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We reverse and remand.
Appellant applied for unemployment compensation benefits following termination of his employment. The claims examiner approved appellant’s benefits upon a determination that appellant had been discharged from employment for reasons other than misconduct connected with work. The employer appealed.
On September 13, 1990, the appeals referee conducted an evidentiary hearing. On September 17, 1990, the referee reversed the claims examiner’s approval of appellant’s benefits. Appellant claims that he did not receive notice of the referee’s decision until October 16, 1990, and that shortly thereafter he filed his appeal. On February 11, 1991, the appeals commission dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the appeal had been filed more than twenty days from the alleged date of mailing of the referee’s decision.
Appellant contends that the appeals commission had jurisdiction because he did not receive timely notice of the referee’s decision. He argues that an evidentiary hearing should have been conducted to determine the dates of mailing and receipt of the referee’s decision. The commission argues that section 443.151(4)(b)(3), Florida Statutes (1989), mandates that it automatically dismiss late-filed appeals. That section provides:
The parties shall be promptly notified of such referee’s decision; and such decision shall be final unless, within 20 days after the date of mailing of notice thereof to the party’s last known address or, in the absence of such mailing, within 20 days after the delivery of such notice, further review is initiated pursuant to paragraph (c).
In Pierre v. Oriente Sugar Cane Planting, Inc., 504 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), and Robinson v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 526 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), this court held that where a claimant did not receive notice of the referee’s decision, the commission’s dismissal of the appeal constituted a denial of due process. Since questions of fact remained as to the dates of the mailing and receipt of notice, we hold that the commission’s summary dismissal in this case constituted a denial of due process. Accordingly, we reverse the commission’s dismissal and remand for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of notice.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
GARRETT and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Espinosa v. Cableoptics, Inc., 807 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…lm Beach, 627 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Koppelman v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 626 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Livingston v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 620 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Finney v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 587 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Robinson v. Morrison, Inc., 501 So. 2d 1323 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). In the instant case, Espinoza never claimed that the referee’s decision was not mailed to him, or mailed to him untimely, even though the U.A.C. did give him an o…
-
Applegate v. Nat'l Health Care Affiliates, Inc., 667 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…mailed had closed for two weeks was not accepted as grounds for avoiding the effect of late filing of the appeal). Such factual questions should be resolved by a fact-finding tribunal on remand. See Finney v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 587 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); but see Teater v. Department of Commerce, 370 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (directing that the appeal be considered on the merits upon remand, in the interest of justice). We remand for an evidentiary hearing on the question wh…
-
Delgado v. Concentrated Chem. Co., 644 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…ed the decision they were appealing or they alleged that they received the decision after the appeal time had expired. See Livingston v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 620 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Finney v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 587 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Robinson v. Morrison, Inc., 501 So. 2d 1323 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Waldron v. City of Arcadia, 409 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). Under those circumstances, the late appealing party has been found to be entitled to an evidentiary…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Burina Robinson v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Morrison, Inc., 526 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Halbert v. First Realty Servs., Inc., 504 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Adonia Pierre v. Oriente Sugar Cane Planting, Inc., 504 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)