KEITH KOPPELMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, APPELLEE
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.
Keith Koppelman challenges the Unemployment Appeals Commission's dismissal of his appeal as untimely filed. The court reverses and remands, holding that a hearing is required to determine whether Koppelman timely received notice of the hearing and the referee's decision before the timeliness deadline could apply.
The court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Koppelman timely received notice of the hearing and the referee's decision. If the evidence does not rebut his contention that he failed to receive timely notice, the case shall be remanded to the appeals referee for him to present evidence in his defense.
[1] An unemployment compensation appeal may be dismissed for untimeliness only after a determination of whether the claimant received timely notice of the hearing or the deci…
[2] A claimant's assertion of delayed mail delivery may necessitate an evidentiary hearing to determine if notice of an unemployment appeals hearing was received in time to a…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“a remand to the UAC is required to determine whether claimant received notice of the hearing in time to appear, or notice of the referee's decision in time to appeal”
Establishes the core holding that the UAC must conduct an evidentiary hearing to resolve whether timely notice was received before dismissing for untimeliness.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKoppelman was discharged on March 10, 1992, from his position as a captain and the claims examiner awarded him unemployment benefits. The employer app…
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 Notice Of Decision cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, Judge.
Keith Koppelman appeals an order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission (UAC) dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction because it was untimely filed. We reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Koppelman did in fact timely receive notice of the hearing before the appeals referee and the referee’s subsequent decision reversing the claims examiner’s award of benefits.
Koppelman was discharged from his employment as a captain for a catamaran sailing company on March 10, 1992, after a crew member on his boat was injured. He contended he was discharged because management needed a scapegoat. The claims examiner awarded benefits and the employer appealed.
The notice of telephone hearing, advising that a hearing on the employer’s appeal would be held on June 15,1992, states that it was sent to Koppelman’s last known address on June 4, 1992. Koppelman did not attend. Based upon evidence submitted by the employer, and the lack of rebuttal proof on Koppelman’s behalf, the appeals referee ruled that Koppelman was discharged for misconduct connected with his work and was therefore disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits. The order contains a certification that it was mailed to Koppelman’s last known address on June 15, 1992.
On June 30, 1992, Koppelman wrote a letter to the UAC which was received and filed July 10, 1992. In his letter, he explains that on May 31,1992, he left Key West to relocate in Rhode Island in order to accept another employment opportunity. He further said: “Delays in receiving my mail left me unaware of the [June 15] hearing.” The remainder of his letter gives his version of the events of March 10, 1992, and his defense to the charge of negligence. Because his appeal was not filed within 20 days as required by section 443.151(4)(b)3, Florida Statutes (1991), and Rule 38E-3.006, Florida Administrative Code, requires dismissal if an application for review is not timely filed, the UAC dismissed Koppelman’s appeal.
We find the essential facts of this case virtually indistinguishable from those presented to the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Robinson v. Morrison, Inc., 501 So. 2d 1323 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).1 In accordance with the holding of the Robinson court, it is our view that a remand to the UAC is required to determine whether claimant received notice of the hearing in time to appear, or notice of the referee’s decision in time to appéal.2 In the event the evidence does not rebut Koppelman’s contention that he did not timely receive notice of the hearing or notice of the decision of the appeals referee, then the cause shall be returned to the appeals referee, where claimant can present evidence in his behalf. See Carrigan v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 615 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Finney v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 587 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Robinson v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 526 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Pierre v. Oriente Sugar Cane Planting, Inc., 504 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); and State ex rel. Owra v. Florida Department of Commerce, Division of Employment Security, 351 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
REVERSED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
KAHN and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur. . See also the appeal after remand, Robinson v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 526 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).
. In a letter filed by appellant in this court in lieu of his initial brief appellant asserts, among other things, that his employer was aware he would be unavailable for the appeal hearing, and that when he had his mail forwarded to his next landfall, he learned that he had missed the scheduled hearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Espinosa v. Cableoptics, Inc., 807 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…Care Affiliates, 667 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Landrum v. James Rummer Timber Harvesting, Inc., 645 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Holmes v. City of West Palm 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).…
-
Brumm v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 680 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…olmes v. City of W. Palm Beach, 627 So. 2d 52, 53-54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (cause remanded for “evidentiary hearing on whether appellant was mailed and received notice of hearing and notice of determination”); Koppelman v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 626 So. 2d 322, 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (“[A] remand to the UAC is required to determine whether claimant received notice of the hearing in time to appear, or notice of the referee’s decision in time to appeal.”); Livingston v. Unemploy- [*1124] merit Appeals Comm…
-
Genel Altimeaux v. Ocean Constr., Inc., 752 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…tice of the hearing, courts have remanded for an evi-dentiary hearing to determine whether the claimant received notice of the hearing in time to appear, or notice of the determination in time to appeal. See Koppelman v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 626 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Robinson v. Morrison, Inc., 501 So. 2d 1323 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). If the evidence does not rebut the claimant’s contention that he did not receive notice of the hearing, the case is returned to the appeals referee to give the cla…
Previewing 3 of 6 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. Morrison, Inc., 501 So. 2d 1323 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Burina Robinson v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Morrison, Inc., 526 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- State of Fla. ex rel. William M. Owra v. Fla. Dep't OF Commerce, 351 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- 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)
- Finney v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Glades A.C.T.S., Inc., 587 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Carrigan v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Manny's Pizza House, 615 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)