JASON M. EBERSOL, APPELLANT,
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, 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.
Ebersol appealed the Unemployment Appeals Commission's dismissal of his unemployment compensation appeal as untimely. The court reversed and remanded, holding that the Commission must conduct an evidentiary hearing on whether Ebersol received proper notice of the initial decision and whether his timely facsimile transmission was received by the agency.
The court held that the Commission must afford Ebersol an evidentiary hearing on: (1) whether and when the appeals referee's decision was mailed to him to trigger the 20-day appeal period, and (2) whether the Commission received his timely facsimile transmission, as the record showed he did fax a request within the deadline but the Commission's docketing procedures remain unclear.
[1] A claimant's appeal period for unemployment benefits is triggered by the mailing or delivery of notice of the adverse decision.
[2] An unemployment benefits claimant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether and when notice of an adverse decision was mailed, which would trigger the…
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“an appeals referee's decision "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...."”
Establishes the statutory 20-day appeal period and the requirement that proper notice must be mailed or delivered to trigger it
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEbersol's appeal of an adverse ruling by an appeals referee on his unemployment compensation claim was summarily dismissed by the Commission as untime…
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
PLEUS, J.
Ebersol’s appeal of an adverse ruling by the appeals referee on his claim for unemployment compensation benefits was summarily dismissed by the Unemployment Appeals Commission (Commission) as being untimely. The Commission urges that since Ebersol elected to file his appeal by facsimile, he assumed all risks associated with the failure of the notice to be timely docketed with the Commission.1 We believe Ebersol raises two points which require remand for an evidentiary hearing.
First, Ebersol claims that he never received written notice of the adverse decision of the appeals referee. Section 443.151(4)(b)3, Florida Statutes, provides that an appeals referee’s decision “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....” Ebersol’s contention calls into question whether this 20 day appeal period was in fact triggered.2 See Holmes v. City of West Palm Beach, 627 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). The record contains no indication that Ebersol was afforded an opportunity by the Commission to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed.
In accordance with section 120.68(7), Florida Statutes, and decisional law,3 the Commission must afford Ebersol an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether and when a copy of the appeals referee’s decision was mailed to him so as to formally trigger the running of the 20 day appeals period.
Second, the Commission rules expressly permit a party to file a request for an appeal by facsimile.4 While as a general proposition, a party such as Eber-sol is deemed to assume the risk of transmission difficulties associated with faxes, the record here contains a fax history report reflecting that Ebersol did indeed fax a document to the agency on June 28, 2002, or well within 20 days of the date of the appeals referee’s decision. While the Commission did not docket any request for appeal within this 20 day period, the record is completely silent as to whether this was because the fax was not received by the Commission or because the Commission received the fax but was remiss in not docketing the request. To simply accept the Commission’s position that Ebersol bears the risk in either circumstance would excuse the agency from developing careful procedures for docketing faxed requests for appeals which it receives. We are more inclined to embrace a salutary rule that where a claimant makes an evidentiary showing that he did, in fact, timely and correctly direct a fax of a request to appeal to the Commission, an issue of fact is created as to whether the Commission received the request for timely docketing. On remand, the Commission shall apply these principles.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
GRIFFIN and TORPY, JJ., concur. . See Florida Administrative Code Rules 60 BB-6.003(3) and 60 BB-7.006; U.A.C. See also Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-101.001(2)(e)2.
. The mailing date on the decision, by itself, is insufficient to rebut Ebersol’s claim. Landrum v. James Rummer Timber Harvesting, Inc., 645 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Robinson v. Morrison, Inc., 501 So. 2d 1323 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).
. See Ferrero v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 829 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Landrum; Holmes.
. See Florida Administrative Code Rule 60 BB-6.003(3).
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)…ls Comm’n, 869 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Guerrero v. Florida Unemployment 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…
-
Mendelsohn v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 851 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…ed. In the order now being appealed, the Commission found that the appellant’s re-determination request was untimely. This finding was made after an evidentiary hearing according with the requirements of Ebersol v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 845 So. 2d 945, (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Appellate review of this factual finding is governed by § 120.68(7)(b), Florida Statutes, which precludes an assessment as to the weight of the evidence and instead directs that factual determinations should be set aside when u…
-
Reynolds v. SV Cent. Dania Props., Inc., 849 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…successfully sent to the Office of Appeals within the time for filing an appeal. We reverse the order affirming the appeals referee’s determination that the appeal was untimely. We adopt the reasoning of Ebersol v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 845 So. 2d 945, 947 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), which states: [T]he Commission rules expressly permit a party to file a request for an appeal by facsimile. While as a general proposition, a party such as Ebersol is deemed to assume the risk of transmission difficulties…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- 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)
- Brendan Cove, Ltd. v. Emrich Invs., Inc., 829 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)