KAREN POLLETT, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA 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.
The court held that the claimant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine if the lateness of her appeal was caused by erroneous information from the Unemployment Appeals Commission.
[1] An appeal of an unemployment benefits denial may be heard even if untimely if the delay in filing was occasioned by the actions of the Unemployment Appeals Commission.
[2] A claimant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine if erroneous information provided by the Unemployment Appeals Commission affected the timeliness of their ap…
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 intelligenceAppellant's unemployment benefits claim was denied, and her subsequent appeal to the Commission was filed four days after the deadline. She alleged sh…
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 Administrative Appeals cases and more on FLexlaw
BROWNING, J.
Appellant' seeks review of the dismissal of her claim for unemployment benefits as untimely. We reverse and remand for a hearing to determine whether the lateness of the filing is attributable to the Unemployment Appeals Commission.
Appellant’s request for unemployment benefits was initially denied on the ground that she was “not able and available for work as required by law.” She requested a hearing, but after that hearing the referee affirmed the denial of benefits. Appellant appealed the denial to the Commission four days after the deadline to appeal. In response to the Commission’s order to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely, Appellant alleged that because she did not understand the referee’s order, she called the Commission’s claims information number. She alleged that she was told she had been awarded benefits, which would be sent by direct deposit within two weeks. She further alleged that after waiting and receiving no money, she called again and was finally informed that her claim had been denied. Thereafter and without a hearing, the Commission dismissed the appeal as untimely.
Although there is neither a statutory nor a “good cause” exception to the time limits for appeals to the Commission, there is an exception, based on due process and fairness concerns, where the delay in filing the notice of appeal “was occasioned by the actions of the Commission.” Thurman v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 881 So. 2d 89, 91 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). The desired remedy is an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the lateness is attributable to the Commission. E.g., Applegate v. Nat’l Health Care Affiliates, Inc., 667 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Here, Appellant is entitled to a hearing to determine whether she received erroneous information, and if she did, what bearing the erroneous information had on the timeliness of her appeal.
Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND for an evidentiary hearing.
BARFIELD and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Colson v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Musgrove Constr., Inc., 76 So. 3d 1042 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…ssion or other situations where the Commission might have contributed to the delay in the claimant’s filing of the appeal. See Ortolano v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n., 33 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); Pollett v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n., 928 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Applegate v. Nat’l Health Care Affiliates, 667 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Thus, the statute now contains an avenue for a claimant to assert good cause for a late-filed appeal during the administrative proceedings. In this…
-
Ortolano v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 33 So. 3d 823 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…the time limits for appeals to the UAC, there is an exception, based on due process and fairness concerns, when the delay in filing the notice of appeal “was occasioned by the actions of the Commission.” Pollett v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 928 So. 2d 469, 470 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (quoting Thurman v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 881 So. 2d 89, 91 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)). Were we the prophesied King of Asia, we might sever this bureaucratic Gordian knot because as it now stands, there apparently exis…
-
Ellis v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 73 So. 3d 887 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…airness concerns, when the delay in filing the notice of appeal “was occasioned by the actions of the Commission.’ ” Ortolano v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 33 So. 3d 823, 825 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (quoting Pollet v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 928 So. 2d 469, 470 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (“[a]ppellant is entitled to a hearing to determine whether she received erroneous information, and if she did, what bearing the erroneous information had on the timeliness of her appeal.”)) In Ortolano, the claimant receiv…
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
- Thurman v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 881 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Harrison v. State, 667 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)