CAROL GILES, APPELLANT,
v.
REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE APPEALS COMMISSION AND PAYCHECK BUSINESS SOLUTIONS INC., 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.
Carol Giles appealed a Commission decision dismissing her reemployment assistance benefits appeal as untimely. The First District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Giles is entitled to an evidentiary hearing because due process concerns are implicated when filing delays are occasioned by the Commission's actions, particularly where she allegedly received erroneous information about the status of her appeal.
Giles is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine whether she received erroneous information from the Commission regarding her appeal status, and if so, what bearing such misinformation had on the timeliness of her appeal filing.
[1] An unemployment compensation appeal may be heard even if untimely filed, if the delay was occasioned by the actions of the Commission.
[2] A party is entitled to a hearing to determine if mixed signals from an agency impacted the timeliness of their appeal.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Due process and fairness concerns are implicated where "the delay in filing the notice of appeal 'was occasioned by the actions of the Commission.'"”
Establishes the legal standard for when procedural default may be excused based on Commission conduct
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGiles received a decision from a reemployment assistance appeals referee that reversed her initial determination for benefits. She failed to file an a…
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 Administrative Decision cases and more on FLexlaw
Carol Giles appeals a final order of the Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission (“Commission”). The Commission’s order dismissed as untimely Giles’ appeal of a decision of a reemployment assistance appeals referee which reversed an initial determination finding that Giles qualified for reemployment assistance benefits. Before dismissing the appeal, the Commission issued an order for Giles to show cause why the appeal should not be considered untimely because of her failure to file the appeal within twenty *428days of the appeals referee’s decision. In response, Giles alleged that she did not understand the contents of the documents she received from the Commission and that when she contacted the Commission to seek clarification, she was misinformed by employees of the Commission regarding the disposition of the appeal to the appeals referee. Giles alleged that she contacted the Commission by phone on three occasions and was informed each time that she had won the appeal and that there was nothing else she needed to do. She alleged that she contacted the Commission for a fourth time and, at that time, was told by an employee of the Commission that the appeal was actually decided adversely to her. Later that day, Giles filed an appeal with the Commission, one day past the twenty-day deadline.
Due process and fairness concerns are implicated where “the delay in filing the notice of appeal ‘was occasioned by the actions of the Commission.’ ” Pollett v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 928 So.2d 469, 470 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (quoting Thurman v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 881 So.2d 89, 91 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)). Here, as in Pollett, Giles is entitled to a hearing to determine whether she received erroneous information from the Commission, and if so, what bearing it had on the timeliness of her appeal. Id.
Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND for an evidentiary hearing.
DAVIS, VAN NORTWTCK, and ROWE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Thurman v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 881 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Pollett v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 928 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)