LAURA BRUMM, 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.
Laura Brumm appealed the Unemployment Appeals Commission's dismissal of her appeal as untimely. The court reversed and remanded because neither the referee nor the UAC made findings regarding when Brumm received the referee's decision, which was necessary to determine if her appeal was timely.
No. The UAC must make findings of fact concerning when the claimant received the referee's decision to determine whether the appeal was timely filed. The case is reversed and remanded for the UAC to hold an evidentiary hearing on this issue.
[1] An untimely filed appeal may be considered timely if the claimant did not receive notice of the hearing or decision in time to appear or appeal.
[2] A claimant's assertion of delayed mail delivery preventing timely receipt of notice warrants an evidentiary hearing to determine the timeliness of notice.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 legal standard that factual findings on notice are required before dismissing an appeal as untimely
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLaura Brumm appealed an appeals referee's decision to the Unemployment Appeals Commission. The UAC dismissed her appeal as untimely. The record did no…
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
PER CURIAM.
In this case, a question arose concerning the timeliness of Laura Brumm’s appeal of the appeals referee’s decision to the Unemployment Appeals Commission (UAC).
The UAC acted properly in remanding the case to the referee for an evidentiary hearing. See, e.g., Applegate v. National Health Care Affiliates, Inc., 667 So. 2d 332, 333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (court reversed and remanded for evidentiary hearing UAC order dismissing claimant’s appeal as untimely where claimant alleged that she did. not receive notice of decision until after 20-day appeal period); Landrum v. James Rummer Timber Harvesting, Inc., 645 So. 2d 577, 578 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (court remanded for evidentiary hearing UAC order dismissing claimant’s untimely appeal and instructed that “[o]n remand, if it is determined that Landrum did not receive the appeals referee’s decision in time to seek further appellate review, he should be afforded an opportunity to appeal”); Holmes 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- merit Appeals Comm’n, 620 So. 2d 1103, 1104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (evidentiary hearing necessary to determine whether claimant received due process where claimant asserted that he did not receive referee’s decision in time to seek review).
Nevertheless, neither the referee nor the UAC made any findings concerning when Brumm received the referee’s decision.
Accordingly, this case is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ERVIN, KAHN and BENTON, 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)…of the referee. § 443.151(4)(b)(3), Fla. Stat. (2002). Due process violations or situations where the decision itself was not timely mailed warrant an exception to the dismissal 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. Noth…
-
Vilma Soler v. Reemployment Assistance Appeals Comm'n, 143 So. 3d 1152 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…ption is a due process exception, applicable when a claimant establishes that the decision itself was not timely mailed, that an incorrect address was used, or that the claimant never received the adverse decision. Brumm v. Unemployment App. Comm’n, 680 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). This exception is detailed in the case cited by the majority, Espinosa v. Cableoptics, Inc., 807 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). A second exception is applicable when the Commission or Agency1 creates confusion by its actions (i…
Authorities Cited
- Applegate v. Nat'l 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)
- Holmes v. City OF W. Palm Beach & Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 627 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Livingston v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & News & Sun-Sentinel Co., 620 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Koppelman v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 626 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)