DENISE DAKERS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION AND VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA OF FLORIDA, 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.
Appellant's appeal of unemployment compensation dismissal affirmed because the statute governing such appeals contains no good cause exception to the mandatory twenty-day filing deadline, regardless of appellant's personal circumstances.
The statute governing unemployment compensation appeals does not provide a good cause exception to the mandatory twenty-day filing period.
[1] The statute governing unemployment compensation appeals does not provide a good cause exception to the mandatory twenty-day filing deadline, even when the appellant has l…
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 intelligenceDenise Dakers failed to file her unemployment appeal within twenty days of receiving the administrative decision because she was out of the country te…
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 Untimely Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Denise Dakers appeals a UAC order affirming the dismissal of her appeal as untimely. There is no dispute that Dakers did not file the appeal within the twenty-day time limit and Dakers does not contend that her failure to file was in any way the fault of the agency. She does not challenge the mailing date of the administrative decision, the correctness of the address to which it was mailed, or her timely receipt of the decision. In fact, she does not claim any misunderstanding, excusable or otherwise. Instead, Dakers claims she had good cause for her late filing as she was out of the country tending to a sick relative. Unfortunately, though, the statute governing unemployment compensation appeals does not provide a “good cause” exception to the statutory twenty-day period. See Thurman v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 881 So. 2d 89, 91 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Guerrero v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 855 So. 2d 266, 268 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Frederick v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals, 834 So. 2d 957, 958 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Espinosa v. Cableoptics, Inc., 807 So. 2d 195, 196 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Pelletier v. State, Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 761 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Applegate v. Nat’l Health Care Affiliates, Inc., 667 So. 2d 332, 333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Therefore, although sympathetic to her plight, we must affirm the UAC decision.
Affirmed.
STEVENSON, C.J., WARNER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marissa Tejada v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Or. Television Inc., 950 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Dakers v. State, Unemplmt. App. Comm’n, 942 So. 2d 957, 957-58 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). BROWNING, C.J., BENTON, and LEWIS., JJ., concur.…
-
Milner v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Waste Mgmt., 82 So. 3d 1026 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…untimeliness of unemployment appeals has been excused on grounds of fairness and due process when the untimeliness was 'occa- . sioned by the actions of the Commission.' " (citations omitted)). See also Dakers v. State, Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 942 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (affirming dismissal of appeal on grounds that it was not filed within the statutory twenty-day period, when claimant did not challenge the mailing date of the decision, the correctness of the address to which it was mailed, or h…
-
Rostran v. The Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Holiday CVS, LLC., 83 So. 3d 844 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…ess. Agency and judicial rulings have not found “good cause” for reinstating an untimely appeal under this provision based on an appellant's misunderstanding, busy schedule, or similar excuse. See, e.g., Dakers v. State, Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 942 So. 2d 957, 958 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (finding no "good cause” exception to the twenty-day filing requirement for a claimant/appellant out of the country tending to a sick relative). . While claimants appear to miss the twenty-day deadline more often than emplo…
Authorities Cited
- Espinosa v. Cableoptics, Inc., 807 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Applegate v. Nat'l Health Care Affiliates, Inc., 667 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Thurman v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 881 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Trisha L. Frederick v. Florida Unemployment Appeals, 834 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Pelletier v. State, 761 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- 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)