SHEAR ENTERPRISES, LLC, APPELLANT,
v.
REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE 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.
Employer's appeal of unemployment benefits award reversed and remanded because the Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission failed to address the employer's newly discovered evidence regarding the claimant's voluntary quit.
An appellate body must specifically address and rule on an employer's request to consider newly discovered evidence, even though accepting such evidence remains within the body's discretion.
[1] An administrative body must provide a specific ruling on a party's request to consider newly discovered evidence, even though accepting such evidence remains discretionar…
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 intelligence“Although the decision to accept newly discovered evidence is within the RAAC's discretion, Shear is entitled to a decision on its request as well as the right to challenge the decision if it believes the decision was erroneous.”
Court explaining that while the RAAC has discretion over newly discovered evidence, it must rule on the request
David Casey claimed he was fired and sought unemployment benefits. Shear Enterprises appealed the appeals referee's decision awarding benefits to Case…
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
Shear Enterprises, LLC (Shear), appeals the Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission’s (RAAC) order affirming the appeals referee’s decision finding David Casey was qualified for receipt of unemployment benefits. Because the RAAC’s order does not specifically address Shear’s alleged newly discovered evidence, we reverse and remand.
After the appeal’s referee entered its decision in this matter, Shear appealed to the RAAC. In its request for an appeal, Shear indicated that it recently discovered text messages between Casey and an employee at Shear that demonstrated that Casey had in fact voluntarily quit and was not fired as he claimed. Although the RAAC heard the appeal, its order affirming the appeals referee’s decision does not indicate that it considered the alleged newly discovered evidence. Although the decision to accept newly discovered evidence is within the RAAC’s discretion, Shear is entitled to a decision on its request as well as the right to challenge the decision if it believes the decision was erroneous. See Silvia v. Cumberland Farms, Inc., 588 So.2d 1069, 1071 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); see also City of Boynton Beach v. State, Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 922 So.2d 1099, 1101 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (reversing and remanding for the commission to consider the employer’s newly discovered evidence and to provide it a ruling).
Accordingly, we reverse the RAAC’s order affirming the appeals referee’s decision and remand for the RAAC to consider Shear’s alleged newly discovered evidence and to provide it a ruling on the evidence.
Reversed and remanded.
KELLY and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Silvia v. Cumberland Farms, Inc., 588 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- City OF Boynton Beach v. State, 922 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)