ALAN W. EGNER, PETITIONER,
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION AND RICK GETTIG HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING, INC., RESPONDENTS
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.
Alan Egner petitioned the First District Court of Appeal for review of an Unemployment Appeals Commission order vacating an appeals referee's decision in his favor and remanding for a new hearing. The court determined it lacked proper jurisdiction and transferred the case to the Second District Court of Appeal, the correct forum under Florida statutory provisions.
The Second District Court of Appeal is the proper forum for review because section 443.151(4)(e) of the Florida Statutes provides that final orders of the Unemployment Appeals Commission must be reviewed in the appellate district where the issues were decided by the appeals referee. Since the appeals referee rendered his decision in St. Petersburg (within the Second District's jurisdiction), appellate review must go to that court.
[1] Interlocutory review of an agency decision is permissible only if review of the final agency decision would not provide an adequate remedy.
[2] Appellate review of final orders of the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission is limited to the appellate district in which the issues were decided by an appeals refere…
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“if review of the final agency decision would not provide an adequate remedy.”
Establishes the statutory basis for interlocutory review of non-final administrative orders
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEgner claimed unemployment benefits, which the employer contested. An appeals referee conducted a hearing where only Egner appeared and presented evid…
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 Petition For Review Of Agency Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Alan W. Egner’s claim for unemployment benefits was controverted by the employer. A hearing was noticed but only Egner appeared and gave evidence. The appeals referee ruled in Egner’s favor. The employer appealed to the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission which vacated the decision of the appeals referee and remanded for a new hearing. Egner has timely petitioned for review of that order in accordance with section 120.68(1), Florida Statutes, which provides for interlocutory review “if review of the final agency decision would not provide an adequate remedy.”
On its own motion, this court has determined it is not the proper forum to consider this petition. The appeals referee rendered his decision in St. Petersburg, located within the territorial jurisdiction of the Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District. See §§ 26.021(6) and 35.03, Fla.Stat. (1993). Further, section 443.151(4)(e) provides that final orders of the Unemployment Appeals Commission “shall be subject to review only by notice of appeal in the district court of appeal in the appellate district in which the issues involved were decided by an appeals referee....” This specific statutory provision clearly controls over section 120.-68(2) which permits review in the appellate district where the agency maintains its headquarters or where a party resides.
Thus, appellate review of any final order which might ultimately emanate from Mr. Egner’s claim would clearly go to the Second District.
We find that the statutory remedy of appellate review of non-final administrative orders, just as the power to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction, is properly predicated on appellate review and supervisory power. Cf. Florida Dep’t of Community Affairs v. Escambia County, 582 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
For the above reasons, we conclude that the District Court of Appeal, Second District, is the appropriate forum to consider this petition and, in accordance with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.040(b), this cause is hereby transferred to that court.
ZEHMER, C.J., and JOANOS and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lynch v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Riverside Paper Co., Inc., 988 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…specific statute otherwise providing that these appeals must be filed only where the appeals referee made the decision. Accordingly, we transfer this case to the First District. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.040(b)(1); Egner v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 633 So. 2d 1157, 1158 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (transferring similar cause to appropriate forum because decision was rendered outside court’s territorial jurisdiction). We certify that our decision today is in express and direct conflict with the holding in Mendelman.…
-
Presnell v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 1 So. 3d 1113 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)…that it was not authorized to consider the appeal, and transferred the case to the First District Court of Appeal for resolution. Our research has uncovered a third interpretation of this statute, found in Egner v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 633 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). In Egner, the First District read the statute as requiring the appeal to be filed in the district from which the appeals referee rendered his or her written decision in the case. Because the referee’s written decision in that ca…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Escambia Cnty. & Honorable John P. Kuder, 582 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)