ALEX CORNELLO, APPELLANT,
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, AND CAPITAL HOLDING AGENCY GROUP, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed the Commission's jurisdictional dismissal and remanded for merits hearing, finding that the claimant was denied due process when misinformed about his benefit amount, preventing timely appeal.
A claimant denied due process by misinformation about benefit amounts must be afforded a hearing on the merits despite missing the appeal deadline.
[1] A claimant's failure to timely appeal from a claims adjudicator's determination may be excused where the Division of Unemployment Compensation's misinformation about bene…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“he has clearly been denied fundamental due process. From the statements and exhibits contained in appellant's briefs, it seems clear that appellant was both misled and misinformed.”
Court's conclusion regarding the due process violation caused by the Division's misinformation about benefit amounts.
Appellant Cornello was initially told his weekly unemployment benefit was $16, then less than $3, and only received correct information of $103 per we…
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 Unemployment Compensation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the Commission’s order affirming the appeals referee’s decision that he lacked jurisdiction, and we remand for an evidentiary hearing before the appeals referee to address the merits of appellant’s position that he left his employment because of harassment by management.
Appellant did not timely appeal from the claims adjudicator’s determination, thus neither the appeals referee nor the Commission ever considered the merits of appellant’s claim. It is clear from what is before us that appellant’s failure to take a timely appeal was substantially occasioned by his being informed initially that his weekly benefit was $16, then officially informed that the weekly benefit was less than $3 — neither amount worthy of an appeal. By the time the Division of Unemployment Compensation mailed correct information to appellant that his benefit would be $103 per week, only two days remained to file an appeal to the referee. We do not know when appellant received the correct information but whether it was the next day or the last day or thereafter, he has clearly been denied fundamental due process. From the statements and exhibits contained in appellant’s briefs, it seems clear that apPeUant was both “isled and misinformed.
ANSTEAD, HERSEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Assam v. Florida Unemployment Appeals, 871 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…wenty day periods, there would not have been confusion as to the appeal deadline. Florida courts under similar circumstances have excused untimeliness when occasioned by the actions of the Commission. See Cornello v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 624 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (claimant-appellant was denied fundamental due process when applicant was twice misinformed as to his weekly benefit amount and correct information was not mailed to applicant until two days before deadline to file appeal); Pierr…
-
Nelson v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Specialized Painting, Inc., 880 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…ent. See Gant v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 743 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (reversing overpayment determination and remanding for referee to consider whether claimant was eligible for benefits); see also Cornello v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 624 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (reversing dismissal of untimely appeal when claimant was misinformed about amount of weekly benefits and only informed of correct amount in final days of appeal period). Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. ALTENBERN…
-
Anne Marie Francois v. State, 852 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…ect fax number or misled into faxing her notice of appeal to the incorrect fax number and that she actually attempted to fax her notice of appeal to the Commission within the twenty-day time period); see also Cornello v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 624 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)(reversing UAC’s order that affirmed appeals referee’s decision that it lacked jurisdiction because claimant had been misinformed and misled). Because appellant’s timely filed notice sufficed to vest jurisdiction in the appeals…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence