ANNE MARIE FRANCOIS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION AND RETIREMENT CARE SERVICES, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the Unemployment Appeals Commission's decision that dismissed an unemployment benefits claimant's appeal as untimely. The court held that the claimant timely filed her appeal by faxing it to an Orlando call center office as instructed by an agency representative, and therefore the appeals referee properly retained jurisdiction to rule on the merits that the claimant was not disqualified from benefits.
The appeal was timely filed because the claimant complied with the agency representative's instructions to fax her appeal to the Orlando call center office well before the twenty-day deadline. The appeals referee properly retained jurisdiction and correctly determined on the merits that the claimant was not disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits.
[1] An appeal is timely filed when a claimant complies with instructions to fax an appeal letter to a designated office for forwarding to the appeals office, provided the fax…
[2] A claimant's timely filed notice of appeal vests jurisdiction in the appeals referee.
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“The appeals referee found that the claimant complied with the agency representative's instructions to fax her appeal letter to the Orlando call center office for forwarding to the appeals office well before the twenty-day period for filing her appeal expired.”
Establishes the factual basis for the timely filing determination
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAnne Marie François filed an appeal of an unemployment benefits determination. An agency representative instructed the claimant to fax her appeal lett…
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
TAYLOR, J.
The Unemployment Appeals Commission reversed the appeals referee’s decision that the claimant’s appeal was timely filed and quashed the referee’s ruling that the claimant was not disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. We reverse the Commission’s order. The appeals referee found that the claimant complied with the agency representative’s instructions to fax her appeal letter to the Orlando call center office for forwarding to the appeals office well before the twenty-day 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 notice of appeal to the incorrect fax number and that she actually attempted to fax her notice of appeal to the Commission within the twenty-day time period); see also Cornello v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 624 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)(reversing UAC’s order that affirmed appeals referee’s decision that it lacked jurisdiction because claimant had been misinformed and misled).
Because appellant’s timely filed notice sufficed to vest jurisdiction in the appeals referee, we reverse the Commission’s order and remand for reinstatement of the referee’s decision on the merits that appellant is not disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits.
HAZOURI, J., concurs.
MAY, J., dissents with opinion.
[*954] MAY, J.
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. Had the appellant raised the issue of the Commission’s finding on the timeliness of her appeal, I would agree with the majority. However, the appellant only argued the merits of her claim for unemployment compensation. I am unwilling to find that the issue of timeliness was properly raised when it does not appear in the appellant’s brief.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Talavera v. Royal Am. Mills, Inc., 24 So. 3d 738 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…tanley v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 864 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (holding that an appeal was timely filed where the claimant attempted to timely fax her appeal but was unsuccessful); Francois v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 852 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (reversing a Commission finding that an appeal was untimely where the claimant timely complied with the agency representative’s instruction to fax her appeal to an Orlando office for forwarding to the appeals office). The record…
Authorities Cited
- Trisha L. Frederick v. Florida Unemployment Appeals, 834 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Cornello v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 624 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)