TRISHA L. FREDERICK, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS, COMPENSATION, ET AL., 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.
Trisha Frederick appealed the dismissal of her unemployment compensation appeal as untimely. The Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission dismissed her appeal because it was filed 50 days after the appeals referee's decision, exceeding the 20-day deadline. The court reversed and remanded, holding that fairness and due process exceptions may apply when a claimant was given an incorrect fax number or misled into using the wrong contact information.
The court reversed the dismissal and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. While the statute and rules provide no good cause exceptions for untimely appeals, fairness and due process considerations may justify exceptions in individual cases. If the claimant can demonstrate she was given an incorrect fax number or misled into using the wrong fax number, and that she actually attempted to file within the 20-day deadline, she shall be afforded an opportunity to appeal.
[1] An appellate court may carve out exceptions to the strict twenty-day deadline for filing an appeal with the Unemployment Appeals Commission based on considerations of fai…
[2] An unemployment compensation appeal may be afforded an opportunity to proceed if the claimant was given an incorrect fax number or misled into faxing their notice of appe…
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“in certain individual cases based on considerations of fairness and due process," appellate courts have carved out exceptions to the dismissal rule”
Establishes the legal foundation for recognizing exceptions to the strict 20-day filing deadline despite the absence of statutory good cause exceptions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFrederick was awarded unemployment compensation benefits, but the employer appealed. A telephone hearing was scheduled for February 26, 2002, with a N…
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 Untimely Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The claimant, Trisha L. Frederick, appeals from an order of the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission [UAC] dismissing her appeal as untimely. We reverse and remand.
The claimant applied for and was awarded unemployment compensation benefits. The employer appealed the determination and requested a hearing. A telephone hearing was scheduled for February 26, 2002. The notice provided a New York phone number for the claimant; however, during the hearing, only the employer made an appearance.
Following the hearing, the appeals referee reversed the initial determination and found that the claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because she voluntarily left employment without good cause attributable to the employer. This decision was mailed to the claimant on February 27, 2002.
The UAC received the claimant’s appeal on April 17, 2002. The claimant’s letter stated that she was not aware of the February 26th hearing and that she was no longer in New York when the hearing took place. Thereafter, the UAC gave the claimant an opportunity to show cause why her appeal should not be dismissed as untimely. The claimant responded by stating that she was given the wrong fax number, and therefore, she was faxing information to the wrong number. She further explained that she had called the UAC almost every day for a month, and that she was told to resubmit her fax. After resubmitting her fax several times, she spoke with a deputy clerk who told her that she had been faxing the information to the wrong fax number. After receiving the claimant’s response, the UAC dismissed the appeal as untimely. This appeal followed.
Pursuant to section 443.151(4)(b)(3), Florida Statutes (2001), the claimant had twenty days after the mailing of the appeal referee’s decision to initiate an appeal with the UAC. If not filed within twenty 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. Applegate v. National Health Care Affiliates, Inc., 667 So. 2d 332, 333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); see also Espinosa, 807 So. 2d at 196; Landrum v. James Rummer Timber Harvesting, Inc., 645 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). We believe these cases apply.
Therefore, we reverse the order under review and remand for an evidentiary hear ing. On remand, if it is determined that the claimant was given an incorrect fax number or somehow misled into faxing her notice of appeal to the incorrect fax number and that she actually attempted to fax her notice of appeal to the UAC within twenty days from the mailing of the appeal referee’s decision, she shall be afforded an opportunity to appeal. Landrum, 645 So. 2d at 578.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lopez v. Am. Airlines & Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 876 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…ntitled to an evidentiary hearing on the timeliness issue.” Guerrero v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 855 So. 2d 266, 268 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Abreu v. Krama Constr. Inc., 870 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Frederick v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals, 834 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Goldberg v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 842 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Here, however, Mr. Lopez does not assert that he never received the referee’s decision or that he received it too late to file a timely appeal. See Guti…
-
Dakers v. State, 942 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…to the statutory twenty-day period. See Thurman v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 881 So. 2d 89, 91 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Guerrero v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals 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…
-
Anne Marie Francois v. State, 852 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…ay period for filing her appeal expired. Based on this finding, which is supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record, the referee concluded that the claimant filed a timely appeal. We agree. See Frederick v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals, 834 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)(reversing dismissal of appeal to Unemployment Appeals Commission as untimely and holding that appeal would be reinstated if, on remand, it is determined that the claimant was given an incorrect fax number or misled into faxing her…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Espinosa v. Cableoptics, Inc., 807 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- 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)
- Creech v. Orlando Leasing Sys. & Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 765 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Richardson v. State, 765 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)