ARTHUR RIEGLER, APPELLANT,
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, AND SEARS ROEBUCK AND COMPANY, 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.
The court held that a belated appeal of an unemployment benefits denial is not authorized by statute or case law, even if a subsequent change in law might affect eligibility.
Appellant Riegler was denied unemployment benefits and did not appeal the initial determination. Later, due to a change in Florida law, his social sec…
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 Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
RAMIREZ, JUAN, JR., Associate Judge.
This is an appeal from an administrative order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission upholding the denial of review of appellant’s unemployment claim. We affirm.
Appellant, Arthur Riegler, was employed at Sears Roebuck and Company from September 1990 to November 1991. Following his termination, he sought unemployment compensation. On February 7, 1992, he was denied benefits for two reasons: (1) that appellant’s reason for quitting was not attributable to his employer, and (2) that his social security benefits disqualified him from unemployment benefits. Mr. Riegler did not appeal this denial.
More than five months later, on July 13, 1992, appellee mailed a notification to Mr. Riegler that due to a change in Florida law, income from Social Security was not deductible from unemployment compensation benefits effective July 5, 1992. On July 17, 1992, Mr. Riegler sought to reactivate his case by filing a notice of appeal. This appeal was ruled to be untimely.
Appellant argues that he did not appeal the initial determination in February because it would have been pointless, but given the subsequent amendment in the statute he ought to be afforded the opportunity to show he is entitled to benefits now that the law says he may be eligible for them — at least for the period 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 candidly admits that he was correctly informed of the status of the law in February 1992.
AFFIRMED.
GUNTHER and STONE, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Plain v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 874 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Riegler v. Unemployment Appeals Com’n, 633 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). WARNER, KLEIN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.…
-
Quintana v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 29 So. 3d 446 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…law does not permit good cause exceptions to the dismissal rule, we are bound to affirm the order of the Appeals Commission below. See Robinson v. Sun Bank & Trust Co., 685 So. 2d 1325 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Riegler v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 633 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Leon v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 476 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Affirmed.…
-
Valera v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 25 So. 3d 1250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…vided by the statute and dismissal rule. However, the statute and rule do not permit good cause exceptions to the dismissal rule. See Robinson v. Sun Bank & Trust Co., 685 So. 2d 1325, 1326 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Riegler v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 633 So. 2d 1182, 1182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Leon v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 476 So. 2d 761, 762 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). For this reason, we affirm the order of the Commission.…
Authorities Cited
- Osborne v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Int'l Typography, 548 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)