JOHN M. ORTEGA, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION AND SYMAX SERVICES LIMITED, 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.
John Ortega appeals the denial of unemployment benefits by the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission. The court reversed and remanded because the Appeals Referee allowed the hearing to proceed without the employer Symax present despite Symax's request for continuance, and then denied benefits without giving Symax an opportunity to rebut Ortega's prima facie case for benefits.
The court held that because Ortega presented a prima facie case entitling him to unemployment benefits and Symax was not permitted to present contrary evidence, the matter must be remanded for a new hearing where both parties may present evidence.
[1] An unemployment benefits hearing must be remanded for a new hearing where the employer was not permitted to present contrary evidence after the employee presented a prima…
[2] An unemployment benefits hearing may proceed without an employer's presence if the employer requests a continuance and the referee grants a delay of the employer's appear…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“If the appellant presents evidence which may constitute grounds for reversing the determination [denying benefits], another hearing will be scheduled. [Symax] will have an opportunity to appear and present evidence as well as review the evidence presented by the appellant.”
The Appeals Referee's conditional promise to schedule a hearing for Symax if Ortega presented sufficient evidence, establishing the procedural framework that was violated.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOrtega's former employer Symax Services Limited requested a continuance before a telephonic hearing regarding Ortega's unemployment benefits claim. Th…
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 Unemployment Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Appellant John Ortega appeals from the Unemployment Appeals Commission’s decision affirming the Appeals Referee’s determination that appellant is not entitled to unemployment benefits. Prior to the hearing in front of the Appeals Referee, appellee Symax Services Limited, appellant’s former employer, requested a continuance. The Appeals Referee responded to Symax’s request for a continuance by granting “the request to delay [Symax’s] appearance” and stating that the telephonic hearing would proceed as scheduled, without the presence of Symax. The Appeals Referee further stated, “If the appellant presents evidence which may constitute grounds for reversing the determination [denying benefits], another hearing will be scheduled. [Symax] will have an opportunity to appear and present evidence as well as review the evidence presented by the appellant.” Accordingly, Symax did not attend the hearing, and because the Appeals Referee found that appellant did not present evidence that required reversal, Symax has not presented evidence or attended a hearing.
Because appellant presented a prima fa-cie case entitling him to unemployment benefits, see Ayers v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 848 So. 2d 1239, 1240-41 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (affirming the referee’s determination that the employee quit with good cause where the employee left because she believed that her employer was illegally billing Medicare), Gorr v. Sheridan Travels, Inc., 655 So. 2d 1310, 1311 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (holding that the referee properly concluded that the employee quit with “good cause” where the employee presented unrebutted evidence that she left her job because her employer was requiring her to backdate ticket orders, which employee considered improper, unprofessional, and illegal), and Kelly v. Dade County Sch. Bd., 872 So. 2d 457, 458 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (finding no competent substantial evidence to support the referee’s determination in favor of the employer where the employer did not present any witnesses with personal knowledge of the claims and did not rebut the employee’s allegations), and Symax was not permitted to present contrary evidence, this case must be remanded for a new hearing, where both appellant and Symax may present evidence.
REVERSED and REMANDED to the Unemployment Appeals Commission with directions to remand to the Appeals Referee for a new hearing.
BENTON, BROWNING and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ayers v. State, 848 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Williams, 655 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Kelly v. Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd., 872 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)