HILLARY N. GOLDBERG, APPELLANT,
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, ET AL., 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.
A claimant whose unemployment appeal was dismissed as untimely challenges that dismissal. The court reverses, holding that due process requires an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the claimant actually received the referee's decision in time to appeal, particularly given her advance notice to the commission of her out-of-state travel and alternative address.
The court reverses the dismissal and remands for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Goldberg received the decision in time to appeal in accordance with procedural due process. If she did not receive it timely, she should be afforded the opportunity to appeal.
[1] An appellate court may reverse and remand a case for an evidentiary hearing to determine if a claimant received an unemployment decision in time to file an appeal in acco…
[2] Due process requires that a claimant receive notice of an unemployment decision in time to file an appeal.
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“We 'have created exceptions to the rule and the statute in certain individual circumstances.'”
Establishes that the appellate court is not bound by the same strict procedural rules that bind the administrative agency and may create exceptions based on individual circumstances.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGoldberg was terminated from employment and initially denied unemployment benefits. She appealed and the referee reversed the denial. The supervisor r…
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
MAY, J.
The claimant appeals the dismissal of her appeal to the Unemployment Appeals Commission based on untimeliness. We reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the claimant received the referee’s decision in time to appeal in accordance with due process.
The claimant applied for unemployment compensation benefits after she was terminated from her employment. Her claim was denied on May 14, 2001. On May 27, 2001, she appealed the adverse determination. The referee determined that the claimant’s refusal to sign a warning notice she believed to be inaccurate was not an “intentional disregard of her employer’s interests.” The referee reversed the determination of ineligibility.
The claimant’s former supervisor then requested a new hearing because she had been unable to find the location and had missed the first hearing. The claimant advised the appeals referee by letter, dated June 28, 2001, that she would be in Michigan from July 15, 2001, to September 30, 2001, or early October. She asked that the new hearing be set accordingly, or that she be able to participate by phone. She included her local and long distance telephone numbers and address in Michigan.
On July 11, 2001, the same appeals referee heard the claimant’s case. Both the claimant and her former supervisor were present. This time, the referee upheld the denial of unemployment compensation benefits. Based on the deputy clerk’s certificate, a copy of the decision was mailed to the claimant at her last known local address on July 11, 2001.
The decision included the requisite notice that the decision would become final unless a written application for review was mailed within twenty (20) calendar days from the mailing date of the decision. On September 13, 2001, sixty-four days after the decision had been mailed, the claimant appealed the decision. The claimant wrote: “I was out of town because of the birth of a new family member. My mail was not forwarded, and I just recently read the decision, which surprised me greatly.” The Unemployment Appeals Commission dismissed the claimant’s appeal as untimely filed.
Due to the compulsory language of the applicable rule and statute and the administrative nature of the agency, the Unemployment Appeals Commission had no choice but to dismiss the appeal. This court and others are not bound by the same restrictions. We “have created exceptions to the rule and the statute in certain individual circumstances.” Holmes v. City of West Palm Beach, 627 So. 2d 52, 53 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Livingston v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 620 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Robinson v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 526 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).
Here, the claimant notified the Commission of her absence from her residence in advance of the hearing. She provided the Commission with an alternative address during her absence from the state. While the mailing date may have allowed for the decision to reach the claimant prior to her departure, this fact cannot be assumed. We therefore reverse and remand this case for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the claimant received the decision in time to file an appeal in accordance with procedural due process. If it is determined that she did not, then she should be afforded that opportunity.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
STEVENSON and GROSS, 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)…t Appeals Comm’n, 855 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Reynolds v. SV Central Dania Props., Inc., 849 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Ebersol v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 845 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Goldberg v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 842 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Brooks v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 760 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Ordinarily, the mailing date shown on the face of a decision is, by itself, insufficient to rebut a party’s claim that he or she did not receive timely…
-
Lopez v. Am. Airlines & Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 876 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…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 Gutierrez v. Fla. Unemployment Comp., 837 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). Accordi…
Authorities Cited
- Burina Robinson v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Morrison, Inc., 526 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Holmes v. City OF W. Palm Beach & Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 627 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Livingston v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & News & Sun-Sentinel Co., 620 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)