JOSEPH M. WIPPEL
v.
REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE APPEALS COMMISSION
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 appeal dismissed as untimely should be reconsidered on remand to determine whether it was excused due to confusion stemming from overlapping agency orders.
[1] An appellate body should not dismiss an appeal as untimely without first determining whether the delay resulted from confusion caused by conflicting agency orders or noti…
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 intelligenceWippel received two contradictory notifications regarding his reemployment assistance application and filed an appeal to RAAC. RAAC dismissed the appe…
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 Administrative Agency Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
___________________________ On appeal from the Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission. Frank E. Brown, Chairman.
December 18, 2018 PER CURIAM.
Wippel filed an appeal to the Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission (RAAC) after he received two contradictory notifications concerning his application for reemployment assistance. RAAC dismissed the appeal as untimely, and Wippel now appeals that dismissal. RAAC concedes error, stating that it should not have dismissed the appeal if it was untimely due to overlapping agency orders. We accept this concession, and remand for a determination as to whether Wippel filed a belated appeal to RAAC due to confusion stemming from these orders. See Ellis v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 73 So. 3d 887, 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). REVERSED and REMANDED.
OSTERHAUS, WINOKUR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________ Joseph M. Wippel, pro se, Appellant. Norman Blessing, General Counsel, and Cristina Velez, Appellate Counsel, Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission, Tallahassee, for Appellee.