DAVID M. DINES, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA 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.
David Dines left employment and filed for unemployment benefits, which were initially denied but reinstated on appeal. The Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission affirmed a decision denying him benefits for the period between the initial denial and reinstatement solely because he failed to file continued claims during that time. The court reversed, holding that requiring continued claims to a tribunal that had already rejected his eligibility was an improper formalistic requirement and constituted harmless error.
The court held that the denial of benefits on this ground was entirely erroneous. The court reversed and held that the statutory requirement for filing weekly continued claims is advisory or directory only under these circumstances, and that the failure to file such claims constitutes harmless error when there is no prejudice to the Commission or employer and the applicant is otherwise eligible for benefits.
[1] A claimant's failure to file continuing claims during a period when their eligibility was erroneously denied does not preclude them from receiving benefits for that perio…
[2] Requiring a claimant to perform a series of useless acts, such as filing claims with a tribunal that has already rejected their eligibility, is prohibited.
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“ordering continuing claims to a tribunal which has already rejected the claimant's eligibility amounts to the prohibited requirement of performing a series of useless acts”
Establishes the core principle that requiring continued claims to a tribunal that has rejected eligibility is improper
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDines left employment on July 14, 1996, and filed for unemployment benefits on July 18, 1996. His application was denied by the claims adjudicator on …
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 Directory Statutory Provisions cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The appellant left his previous employment on July 14,1996, and made a claim for unemployment compensation benefits on July 18, 1996. Although his application was originally denied by the claims adjudicator on August 12, 1996, he appealed and, on September 27, 1996, the appeals referee reinstated the claim and ordered an award of benefits. In the order now under review, however, the unemployment appeals commission affirmed another appeals referee decision that he was not entitled to benefits for the period between August 12, 1996 and September 27, 1996, when he was erroneously deemed in eligible. The sole basis for the ruling was that, during this period, he did not continue to file claims (as he did before and after) under section 443.091(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1997).1 We reverse.
We now hold, as we said in dictum in Savage v. Macy’s East, Inc., 719 So. 2d 1208, 1209-10 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), review denied, (Fla. Feb. 11,1999), that the denial of benefits on this ground is entirely erroneous
[b]oth because ordering continuing claims to a tribunal which has already rejected the claimant’s eligibility amounts to the prohibited requirement of performing a series of useless acts, C.U. Assocs. v. R.B. Grove, Inc., 472 So. 2d 1177 (Fla.1985); Haimovitz v. Robb, 130 Fla. 844, 178 So. 827 (1937); Hoshaw v. State, 533 So. 2d 886 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), and because the failure formally to make the claims was an entirely harmless technicality in light of the indisputable evidence of Ms. Savage’s eligibility for those benefits. See Griffin v. Workman, 73 So. 2d 844 (Fla.1954); Lum-bermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Martin, 399 So. 2d 536, 537 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), review denied, 408 So. 2d 1094 (Fla.1981).
Savage, 719 So. 2d at 1209-10.
Because
no rights are at stake, Reid v. Southern Development Co., 52 Fla. 595, 42 So. 206 (1906), and only a non-essential mode of proceeding is prescribed, Fraser v. Willey, 2 Fla. 116 (1848),
Allied Fidelity Ins. Co. v. State, 415 So. 2d 109, 111 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), it is apparent that, in this context, the statutory requirement for the filing of weekly reports must be deemed to be advisory or directory only. Allied, 415 So. 2d at 111. In the admitted absence of any prejudice to the Commission or the employer, therefore, the failure to make them cannot result in the forfeiture of benefits to which the unemployed applicant is otherwise entitled by law. See Department of Bus. Regulation, Div. of Pari-Mutuel Wagering v. Hyman, 417 So. 2d 671 (Fla.1982)(applying principle of administrative harmless error); Ewing v. Kaplan, 474 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), and cases cited, review denied, 486 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 1986).
For those reasons, the order of the Unemployment Commission is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to afford Dines unemployment compensation benefits for August 12, 1996, through September 27, 1996.
Reversed.
. The statute provides:
443.091 Benefit eligibility conditions.—
(1) An unemployed individual shall be eligible to receive benefits with respect to any week only if the division finds that:
(b) She or he has registered for work at, and thereafter continued to report at, the division, which shall be responsible for notification of the Florida State Employment Service in accordance with such rules as the division may prescribe; except that the division may, by rule not inconsistent with the purposes of this law, waive or alter either or both of the requirements of this subsection as to individuals attached to regular jobs; but no such rule shall conflict with s. 443.111(1).
The rules of the Division of Unemployment Compensation prescribed under this statute provide that claims are made in person or by mail biweekly as instructed. Fla. Admin. Code. R. 3813-3.015(1). With respect to the timeliness of reports, the Division’s rules state:
(3) Time Limit for Filing Continued Claims.
(a) Scheduled Reports. The Division shall accept a continued claim providing it is filed within 14 days following the scheduled report date.
(b) Late Reports. If a report is not made within 14 days following the scheduled report date, as designated by the Division, the claim shall be reopened effective the first day of the week in which the report is made.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Langdon v. State, 947 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…however, that courts should (a) avoid legal wheel-spinning, see State v. Rucker, 613 So. 2d 460, 462 (Fla.1993)(condemning legal “churning”), (b) not require the performance of useless or meaningless acts, Dines v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 730 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); see Costarell v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 916 So. 2d 778 (Fla.2005), (c) deny legal effect to technical missteps which affect no one’s substantial rights, Goodwin v. State, 751 So. 2d 537 (Fla.1999), and, (d) most pointe…
-
Flight Express, Inc. v. Robinson, 736 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…k, 702 So. 2d at 1331. Considered in this light, the failure to follow the rule as to offerors must be considered merely a harmless technical violation which did not affect the rights of the parties. See Dines v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 730 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).…
-
Costarell v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 916 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 2005)…BELL, J., dissenting. I respectfully dissent. I would approve the decision of the Second District below and disapprove Dines v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 730 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). As'the Second District observed, the statutory requirements necessary for one to receive benefits with respect to each week for which an unemployment compensation (UC) claim is made are quite clear, and these requirements serve a…1 / 3
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (12 total)
- Allied Fid. Ins. Co. v. State, 415 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Dep't OF Bus. Reg. v. Hyman, 417 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 1982)
- Griffin v. Workman, 73 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 1954)
- C.U. Assocs., Inc. v. R.B. Grove, Inc., 472 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 1985)
- Haimovitz v. Robb, 130 Fla. 844 (Fla. 1937)
- Reid v. The S. Dev. Co., 52 Fla. 595 (Fla. 1906)
- Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Martin, 399 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Savage v. MacY'S E., Inc., 719 So. 2d 1208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Hoshaw v. State, 533 So. 2d 886 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Philip Fraser and Wife v. Willey, 2 Fla. 116 (Fla. 1848)