ALICE F. PELLETIER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, AND NICKOS, INC., 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 the Unemployment Appeals Commission properly dismissed the appeal as untimely because it was filed after the statutory twenty-day appeal period had expired and no exception applied.
Alice Pelletier appealed the denial of her unemployment benefits claim. The referee mailed the decision on September 30, 1998, with a twenty-day appea…
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 Timeliness Of Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PARKER, Acting Chief Judge.
Alice F. Pelletier appeals the order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission (UAC) dismissing her appeal which challenged the decision of the appeals referee. We affirm.
On September 30, 1998, the referee mailed Pelletier his decision affirming the denial of her claim for unemployment benefits. The decision specifically stated that Pelletier had twenty days from the date the decision was mailed in which to appeal the referee’s decision to the UAC. Unfortunately for Pelletier, she did not file her appeal of the referee’s decision until November 5, 1998, long after the twenty-day appeal period provided by section 443.151(4)(b)3, Florida Statutes (1995), had expired. Because the appeal was filed after the twenty-day appeal period had expired, the UAC dismissed Pelletier’s appeal as untimely.
Section 443.151(4)(b) contains no exceptions that would permit the UAC to accept a late-filed appeal. It does not provide a “good cause” exception. See Luzier v. Florida Dep’t of Commerce, 307 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). While there are no statutory exceptions, this court has carved out a limited exception for those cases in which the appellant alleges that the referee’s decision was not mailed to the appellant in a timely fashion, thus preventing the appellant from acting within the twenty-day appeal period. See Landrum v. James Rummer Timber Harvesting, Inc., 645 So. 2d 577, 578 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). However, Pelletier did not allege that the referee’s decision was not mailed to her in a timely fashion or that she did not receive the referee’s decision in time to act within the twenty-day period. Since Pelletier does not fall within this judicial exception to the twenty-day appeal period, the UAC properly dismissed her appeal.
Affirmed.
WHATLEY and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thurman v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 881 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…913 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Section 443.151(4)(b), governing appeals from UAC determinations, does not provide a “good cause” exception that would permit the UAC to accept an untimely filed appeal. See Pelletier v. State, Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 761 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). While there are no statutory exceptions for late appeals, the courts have carved out a limited exception in cases in which a claimant alleges the notice of the decision was not mailed to him or her in a timely manner. Id. at 413-…
-
Dakers v. State, 942 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…s Comm’n, 855 So. 2d 266, 268 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Frederick v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals, 834 So. 2d 957, 958 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Espinosa v. Cableoptics, Inc., 807 So. 2d 195, 196 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Pelletier v. State, Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 761 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Applegate v. Nat’l Health Care Affiliates, Inc., 667 So. 2d 332, 333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Therefore, although sympathetic to her plight, we must affirm the UAC decision. Affirmed. STEVENSON, C.J., WARNER and TAYLOR, JJ., c…
-
Helms v. Fleetwood Homes OF Fla., Inc., 802 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…mmission (UAC). The UAC dismissed her appeal because it found that it was untimely filed. We conclude that the late filing of the notice of appeal deprived the UAC of jurisdiction to consider the appeal. See Pelletier v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 761 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (holding that section 443.151(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1995), does not contain any exception that would permit the UAC to accept a late-filed appeal). We therefore affirm. Affirmed. PARKER, A.C.J., and WHATLEY, J., and RONDOLI…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Landrum v. James Rummer Timber Harvesting, Inc., 645 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Luzier v. Fla. Dep't OF Commerce, 307 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)