GINA M. LINDEN, 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.
An untimely appeal to the Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission cannot be accepted based on good cause alone unless the untimeliness was occasioned by the Commission's own actions.
[1] An untimely appeal from a reemployment assistance determination may be accepted only where the claimant demonstrates that the Commission's actions occasioned the untimely…
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 intelligenceGina M. Linden appealed an administrative decision denying unemployment compensation benefits, but filed her appeal to the RAAC after the deadline. 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 Untimely Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
Gina M. Linden appeals from an order of the Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission (“RAAC”) dismissing her appeal of an administrative decision denying unemployment compensation benefits as untimely. We affirm.
Ms. Linden contends that she had good cause for failing to timely file her appeal with the RAAC. Unfortunately, section 443.151(4)(b)l., Florida Statutes (2016), which governs appeals from RAAC determinations, does not provide a “good cause” exception that would permit the RAAC to accept an untimely appeal. See Thurman v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 881 So.2d 89, 91 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). The courts have carved out a limited exception in cases where the claimant alleges the untimeliness of unemployment appeals was “occasioned by the actions of the Commission.” Assam v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 871 So.2d 978, 980 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). However, that has not been demonstrated here. Therefore, although sympathetic to her plight, we must affirm the RAAC decision.
AFFIRMED.
ORFINGER, EVANDER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Norman v. Reemployment Assistance Appeals Comm'n (Fla. 2d DCA 2024)
Authorities Cited
- Thurman v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 881 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Assam v. Florida Unemployment Appeals, 871 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)