ROBERT J. BORKOWSKI, 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 should be permitted to raise defenses to both the overpayment and ineligibility determinations when the Commission's actions created confusion.
The Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission dismissed Borkowski's administrative appeal as untimely. Borkowski appealed this dismissal, arguing the Co…
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.
PER CURIAM.
Borkowski appeals an order of the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission which dismissed his administrative appeal as untimely. We reverse and remand.
The circumstances of this case are analogous to those in Assam v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 871 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), which show that the Commission mailed the claimant two separate determinations setting out two distinct 20-day appeal periods (the determination of ineligibility to receive unemployment benefits and the overpayment determination), thereby creating confusion concerning the time for filing an appeal. In reversing the Commission’s dismissal of the appeal, the Third District concluded that the claimant had timely perfected a notice of appeal from the second overpayment determination, and that he was “free to raise any and all factual defenses to the underlying decision [which disqualified him from receiving benefits] to contest the overpayment determination.” Id. at 981.
Similar to the facts in Assam, claimant’s appeal in this case was timely as to the overpayment determination, but untimely in regard to the ineligibility determination. Because, as in Assam, the Commission’s overpayment determination is inextricably intertwined with the disqualification decision, claimant should be free to raise the same defenses pertinent to both decisions.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ERVIN, DAVIS and BENTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Arensen v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & The Health Ctr. of Merritt, 48 So. 3d 936 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…the notices of the twenty-day time to appeal. Assuming the claimant intended to appeal from the May 13th monetary notice, a reversal and remand for a merits hearing is required on due process principles. See Borkowski v. Fla. Unemp. Appeals Comm’n, 930 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (reversing and remanding Commission’s dismissal as untimely of appeal that was timely as to overpayment determination but untimely as to ineligibility determination; holding that, on remand, claimant could raise defenses to eligi…
Authorities Cited
- Assam v. Florida Unemployment Appeals, 871 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)