ERIC M. ESPINOSA, APPELLANT,
v.
CABLEOPTICS, 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.
Eric Espinosa appeals the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission's dismissal of his appeal from a referee's decision denying him unemployment benefits for misconduct. The UAC dismissed his appeal as untimely because he faxed his notice of appeal 21 days after the referee's decision was mailed, exceeding the 20-day statutory deadline. The court affirmed the dismissal.
The court affirmed the dismissal because Espinosa's appeal was untimely filed and he never raised a due process challenge by alleging that the referee's decision was not timely mailed to him. An evidentiary hearing on timeliness would serve no useful purpose where the appellant does not contest the mailing of the referee's decision.
[1] An appeal to the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission must be initiated within twenty days after the mailing or delivery of the referee's decision.
[2] Untimely perfected appeals to the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission are subject to dismissal.
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“an aggrieved party has twenty days after the mailing or delivery of the referee's decision to initiate an appeal with the U.A.C. An appeal which is not timely perfected within twenty days is subject to dismissal”
Establishes the mandatory 20-day deadline for appeals in unemployment compensation cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEspinosa was discharged from his employment and denied unemployment compensation benefits based on a referee's finding of misconduct. He faxed his not…
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 Appeal Of Administrative Decision cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Eric M. Espinosa, a claimant for unemployment compensation benefits in the administrative proceedings below, seeks review of the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission (“U.A.C.”) dismissal of his appeal from the referee’s determination that he was discharged from his place of employment for misconduct and therefore not entitled to benefits. Espinoza’s notice of appeal was deemed to be untimely filed where he faxed his notice of appeal to the U.A.C. twenty-one days after the referee’s decision was mailed to the parties. We affirm.
Pursuant to section 443.151(4)(b)3, Fla. Stat. (1997) 1 an aggrieved party has twenty days after the mailing or delivery of the referee’s decision to initiate an appeal with the U.A.C. An appeal which is not timely perfected within twenty days is subject to dismissal pursuant to Florida 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 appealed was not timely mailed, appellate courts have held 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); Finney v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 587 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Robinson v. Morrison, Inc., 501 So. 2d 1323 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).
In the instant case, Espinoza never claimed that the referee’s decision was not mailed to him, or mailed to him untimely, even though the U.A.C. did give him an opportunity to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed as untimely, prior to its dismissal of the same.
For this reason, we agree with the appellees that an evidentiary hearing on the timeliness issue would serve no useful purpose.
Affirmed.
. That section provides that:
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).
. That rule provides that:
Dismissals. An application for review which is not filed within the time allowed by law shall be dismissed by the Commission for lack of jurisdiction. The dismissal decision shall be limited to findings of fact and a conclusion of law regarding the timeliness of the application for review.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (24 total)
-
Trisha L. Frederick v. Florida Unemployment Appeals, 834 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…ty days, the appeal is subject to dismissal by the UAC for lack of jurisdiction. Fla. Admin. Code R. 60BB-7.006. As the UAC correctly points out, there are no good cause exceptions provided either in the statute or rule. See Espinosa v. Cableoptics, 807 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Creech v. Orlando Leasing Sys., 765 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). However, “in certain individual cases based on considerations of fairness and due process,” appellate courts have carved out exceptions to the dismissal rule. App…
-
Osiel Guerrero v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Unicity Imports Corp., 855 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…te an appeal with the UAC. Failure to perfect an appeal within twenty days subjects a claim to dismissal under Florida Administrative Code Rule 60BB-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 S…
-
Colson v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Musgrove Constr., Inc., 76 So. 3d 1042 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…ctly points out that section 443.151(3)(c), Florida Statutes, clearly provides for the 20-day deadline to appeal, and the Legislature did not provide for any “good cause” to excuse late filing in subsection (3)(c). See Espinosa v. Cableoptics, Inc., 807 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (and cases cited therein). Rule 60BB-5.007, Florida Administrative Code, upon which the Appeals Referee relied, requires dismissal of late-filed appeals with no exceptions. However, in 2005, section 443.151(4)(b)3., Florida Statut…
Previewing 3 of 24 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (12 total)
- Applegate v. Nat'l Health Care Affiliates, Inc., 667 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Fla. State Univ. v. Jenkins, 323 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Burina Robinson v. Morrison, Inc., 501 So. 2d 1323 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- 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)
- Delgado v. Concentrated Chem. Co., 644 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Finney v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Glades A.C.T.S., Inc., 587 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- 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)
- Linderman v. K.B. Beach Suites Ltd PTR, 751 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)