LUIS A. LOPEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
AMERICAN AIRLINES 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed dismissal of unemployment benefits appeal as untimely filed, holding that Lopez failed to file within the statutory twenty-day deadline and was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on timeliness where he did not claim non-receipt or late receipt of the referee's decision.
An unemployment benefits appeal dismissed as untimely is properly affirmed when the appellant fails to file within twenty days of the referee's decision mailing and does not claim non-receipt or late receipt of the decision.
[1] An unemployment claimant is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the timeliness of an appeal to the Unemployment Appeals Commission absent a claim that the referee's…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLuis Lopez appealed a referee's decision denying him unemployment benefits, but failed to file his appeal within twenty days of the date the referee's…
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 Unemployment Benefits Denial cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Luis Lopez appeals an order of the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission dismissing as untimely Mr. Lopez’s appeal of the referee’s decision denying him benefits. We affirm.
The Commission correctly dismissed the appeal as Mr. Lopez did not file his appeal within twenty days of the date that the referee’s decision was mailed to him. § 443.151(4)(b)3, Fla. Stat. (2003). See Venero v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 826 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). In addition, Mr. Lopez is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the timeliness issue. See Espinosa v. Cableoptics, Inc., 807 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002);. Suarez v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 871 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). In some eases,-where “a party claims that a referee’s decision was either untimely mailed or not received, appellate courts have held, on due process grounds, that the claimant was entitled 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 Gutierrez v. Fla. Unemployment Comp., 837 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gonzalez v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 80 So. 3d 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…d upholding dismissal of appeal on the basis it was not filed within twenty days of the date the referee’s decision was mailed to Malary); accord Calderon v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc., 906 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); accord Lopez v. Am. Airlines, 876 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Horvath v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 886 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (affirming on the basis of Espinosa); accord Butler v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 880 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Delgado v. Concentrated C…
-
Clemens v. Peter Namnum, M.D., 233 So. 3d 1146 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…discretion. See Chelminsky v. Branch Banking & Tr. Co., 184 So. 3d 1245, 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). “This court has recognized that [Rule 1.370(b) ] favors amendments to responses to ensure that a cause is decided on its merits.” Istache v. Pierre, 876 So. 2d 1217, 1219 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). In that vein, when an admission affecting the outcome of the case is wrongfully made as the result of a clerical error, case law makes it clear that the court should allow amendment. Id. at 1218-20; see also Thomas v. Chas…
-
Aguilera v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & S. Fam. Ins. Managers, Inc., 946 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…So. 2d 89, 91 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (explaining that “[s]ection 443.151(4)(b), governing appeals from UAC determinations, does not provide a ‘good cause’ exception that would permit the UAC to accept an untimely filed appeal”); Lopez v. Am. Airlines, 876 So. 2d 1217, 1217 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (affirming order of UAC dismissing appeal as untimely where Lopez did not file appeal within 20 days of the mailing date of the referee’s decision and “Lopez does not assert that he never received the referee’s decision or t…
Authorities Cited (12 total)
- Espinosa v. Cableoptics, Inc., 807 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Trisha L. Frederick v. Florida Unemployment Appeals, 834 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Nadrian Butts v. State, 855 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Osiel Guerrero v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Unicity Imports Corp., 855 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Haley v. State, 871 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Suarez v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 871 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Hillary N. Goldberg v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 842 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Venero v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 826 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Arnoldo Gutierrez v. Florida Unemployment Compensation, 837 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Cabanela v. State, 837 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)