NOEL H. BLENMAN
v.
PAYCHEX PEO II LLC, ET AL.
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 appellant forfeits claims of error not raised in the initial brief on appeal from a reemployment assistance benefits denial.
[1] An appellant forfeits claims of error not raised and developed in the initial brief on appeal, and such forfeited issues cannot be considered on appeal.
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“Claims of error not raised by an appellant in its initial brief are deemed abandoned.”
Court citing D.H. v. Adept Cmty. Servs., Inc., 271 So. 3d 870, 880 (Fla. 2018)
Noel Blenman appealed the denial of reemployment assistance benefits after a referee determined he voluntarily separated from employment rather than b…
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 Competent Substantial Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed July 22, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D25-2282
Lower Tribunal No. 25-01347
Noel H. Blenman,
Appellant,
vs.
Paychex PEO II LLC, et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from the State of Florida, Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission.
Noel Blenman, in proper person.
Katie E. Sabo, Appellate Counsel (Tallahassee) for Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission.
Before MILLER, GORDO, and GOODEN, JJ.
MILLER, J.
Noel H. Blenman seeks review of an order of the Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission affirming the denial of reemployment assistance benefits on the grounds that competent, substantial evidence supported the determination by the referee that Blenman was not discharged, but rather voluntarily separated from his employment. We recognize, as did the Commission, that the referee's decision was grounded in the weight he afforded to vastly different competing testimony. And for the first time in these proceedings, Blenman has offered a series of text messages that ostensibly contradict certain aspects of the employer's presentation. But Blenman has failed to identify in his initial brief the requisite reversible error identified in section 120.68(7), Florida Statutes (2025). As the Commission correctly posits, therefore, any such error is deemed forfeited. See D.H. v. Adept Cmty. Servs., Inc., 271 So. 3d 870, 880 (Fla. 2018) ("Claims of error not raised by an appellant in its initial brief are deemed abandoned."); A.B. v. Agency for Health Care Admin., 389 So. 3d 640, 640 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (and cases cited therein) (the failure to raise an issue in the initial brief waives the issue on appeal). Accordingly, we affirm the decision under review.
Affirmed.