BRUCE W. LANDRUM, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES RUMMER TIMBER HARVESTING, INC., AND FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, 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.
Landrum appealed a discharge from unemployment benefits based on alleged misconduct. The Unemployment Appeals Commission dismissed his appeal as untimely, but the court reversed, holding that the mailing date alone was insufficient to prove timely notice and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Landrum actually received the decision within the statutory deadline.
The court held that the mailing date on the decision, by itself, was insufficient to rebut Landrum's claim that he did not receive notice until four months later. The record lacks competent substantial evidence to support the UAC's finding that the appeal was untimely, and therefore an evidentiary hearing is required to ensure procedural due process.
[1] An administrative agency's finding that an appeal is untimely is not supported by competent substantial evidence when the mailing date of the decision alone is insufficie…
[2] A party claiming non-receipt of an administrative decision must be afforded an evidentiary hearing to determine if the appeal was timely filed.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“the mailing date on the decision, by itself, was insufficient to rebut this claim”
Establishes that proof of mailing alone cannot satisfy the burden of proving actual notice to the party
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn June 1993, Landrum was determined eligible for unemployment benefits. His employer appealed and a hearing was held before an appeals referee, which…
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 Administrative Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
THREADGILL, Judge.
Bruce W. Landrum challenges an order of the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission (UAC) dismissing his administrative appeal for lack of jurisdiction because his appeal was untimely. We reverse.
In June of 1993, Landrum was determined to be eligible for unemployment compensation benefits. His employer appealed and a hearing was held before an appeals referee. Landrum did not attend the hearing. The appeals referee determined Landrum had been discharged from employment for misconduct connected with his work and he was therefore disqualified from receiving benefits. A clerk’s certificate reflects the appeals referee’s decision was mailed to Landrum on August 11, 1993.
Section 443.151(4)(b)3., Florida Statutes (1993), provides that appeals referees’ decisions “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).” Land-rum did not appeal the August 11, 1993, decision within twenty days.
Landrum claims he did not receive notice of the adverse determination of the appeals referee until four months after it was entered. The mailing date on the decision, by itself, was insufficient to rebut this claim. See Robinson v. Morrison, Inc., 501 So. 2d 1323, 1325 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). Thus, the record on appeal does not contain competent substantial evidence to support the UAC’s finding that the appeal was untimely. In order to ensure that Landrum received procedural due process, we remand for an evidentiary hearing. Livingston v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 620 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Robinson. See also Waldron v. City of Arcadia, 409 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Teater v. Dep’t of Commerce Bd. of Review, 370 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
On remand, if it is determined that Land-rum did not receive the appeals referee’s decision in time to seek further appellate review, he should be afforded an opportunity to appeal.
Reversed and remanded.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and QUINCE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Espinosa v. Cableoptics, Inc., 807 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…ld on due process grounds that the appellant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the timeliness issue. See e.g., Applegate v. National Health 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); F…
-
Thurman v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 881 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…ing date shown on the face of a decision is, by itself, insufficient to rebut a party’s claim that he or she did not receive timely notice of the decision. See Ebersol, 845 So. 2d at 946, n. 2 (citing Landrum v. James Rummer Timber Harvesting, Inc., 645 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)); Robinson v. Morrison, Inc., 501 So. 2d 1323 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). This rule must, however, be tempered by a showing, as earlier stated, that the untimeliness of a claimant’s appeal was caused by the actions of the Commission. In…
-
Assam v. Florida Unemployment Appeals, 871 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…sal rule for belated appeals. See Brumm v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 680 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Applegate v. National Health Care Affiliates, Inc., 667 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Landrum v. James Rummer Timber Harvesting, Inc., 645 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Obviously, that is not the situation vexing Assam. Nothing in today’s decision should be implied to take away from the iron-clad principle that untimely appeals to the Unemployment Compensation Commission are generally barred. H…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Teater v. Dep't OF Commerce Bd. OF Review, 370 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Burina Robinson v. Morrison, Inc., 501 So. 2d 1323 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Livingston v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & News & Sun-Sentinel Co., 620 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Waldron v. City OF Arcadia & Dep't of Labor & Emp. Sec., 409 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)