MICHAEL D. LINDERMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
K.B. BEACH SUITES LTD PTR, AND FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, APPELLEES

Fla. 3d DCA | 2000-03-15
No. 3D99-1779
Before COPE, SHEVIN and SORONDO, JJ.
751 So. 2d 1262 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2000) Positive Treatment
Cited by 10 cases


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Michael Linderman, claimant, appeals the Unemployment Appeals Commission’s dismissal of his appeal from an adverse determination on his claim for unemployment compensation benefits. The reason for the dismissal was the claimant’s untimely filing of his appeal to the appeals referree. Having reviewed the record before us, it is clear that the claimant was notified by mail of the adverse determination on March 25, 1999. Claimant filed his appeal on April 19, 1999, twenty-five days later. The relevant statute is section 443.151(4)(b)3, Florida Statutes (1999), which reads as follows as concerns decisions of appeals referees:

The parties shall be promptly notified of such referee’s decision; and such 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).

Applying the law to the facts of this case we must conclude that the appeals referee correctly dismissed the claimant’s appeal as untimely.

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Espinosa v. Cableoptics, Inc., 807 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
    …da Administrative Code Rule 38E 3.006.2 As the appellees correctly point out, there are no good cause exceptions to this dismissal rule. See Creech v. Orlando Leasing Sys., 765 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Linderman v. K.B. Beach Suites, Ltd. PRT, 751 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Delgado v. Concentrated Chem. Co., 644 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Florida State University v. Jenkins, 323 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). Where, however, it has been alleged by a party that a referee’s decision sought to be…
  • …7.006. There are no good cause exceptions to this dismissal rule. See Espinosa v. Cableoptics, Inc., 807 So. 2d 195, 196 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Creech v. Orlando Leasing Sys., 765 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Linderman v. K.B. Beach Suites, Ltd. PTR, 751 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Delgado v. Concentrated Chem. Co., 644 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Florida State University v. Jenkins, 323 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). Where, however, a party claims that a referee’s decision was either untimely mailed or…
  • Portia J. Simmons v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 44 So. 3d 222 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
    …pinosa v. Cableoptics, 807 So. 2d 195, 196 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (confirming that the time limits imposed under section 443.151(4) do not provide for good cause exceptions to the time accorded to file an appeal); Linderman v. K.B. Beach Suites LTD PTR, 751 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Accordingly, the order on appeal is affirmed.…

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw