FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY, PETITIONER,
v.
SAMUEL S. JENKINS, AND THE DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, RESPONDENTS
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.
Florida State University sought to challenge an adverse unemployment compensation decision, but missed the statutory 10-day deadline to file an appeal because its personnel office was closed during the holidays. The court denied the writ of certiorari, holding that the statute's deadline applies even when an employer fails to arrange for mail receipt during office closures.
The statutory 10-day deadline in F.S. § 443.07(4)(b)3 applies regardless of whether the employer receives the notice after the deadline expires due to its own failure to arrange for mail receipt during office closures. The deadline is measured from the date of mailing, not the date of receipt.
[1] Decisions of unemployment compensation appeals referees become final unless appealed within the time prescribed by statute.
[2] The powers and authority of administrative boards, commissions, and officers are limited to those granted by statute.
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“This decision will become final unless within 10 days after the date it is mailed you file an application for review to the Industrial Relations Commission”
The statutory requirement for timely appeal, establishing that the deadline runs from the date of mailing, not receipt
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA referee's decision adverse to FSU was mailed on December 20, 1974, with notice that appeals must be filed within 10 days. FSU's personnel relations …
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 Statutory Time Limits cases and more on FLexlaw
BOYER, Chief Judge.
Petitioner, Florida State University (FSU) seeks review by petition for writ of certiorari of an order of the Industrial Relations Commission dismissing petitioner’s appeal on the basis that same was not timely filed.
A decision, adverse to contentions asserted by FSU, which was rendered by a referee of the unemployment compensation appeals section was mailed to FSU on December 20, 1974. A notice accompanying the decision stated, among other things, that: “This decision will become final unless within 10 days after the date it is mailed you file an application for review to the Industrial Relations Commission, Room 219, Ashley Building, Executive Center Drive, Tallahassee, Florida 32301.” Also recited was the fact that the decision had been mailed on December 20, 1974, and a statement that: “Last date for filing appeal to Industrial Relations Commission: December 30, 1974.” The personnel rela tions department, which is the department of FSU which receives notices of decisions of appeals referees concerning unemployment compensation, was closed at 5:00 p.m. on December 20, 1974, and remained closed until 8:00 a.m. on January 2, 1975. Although the decision and notice were promptly handled by the post office department they were not actually received by the personnel relations department until January 2, 1975. On January 6, 1975, FSU filed an appeal to the Industrial Relations Commission. That appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and petition for writ of certiorari to this court followed.
Petitioner candidly acknowledges that F.S. § 443.07(4) (b)3 requires that notices of appeal from a decision of an unemployment compensation appeals referee must be filed with the Industrial Relations Commission within 10 days after the date of mailing of notice of such decision. However, petitioner contends that it was not guilty of carelessness nor negligence and that since such notice was not received until after the 10 days had expired, the 10 day statutory time period should not be applicable, citing Miami Dolphins, Ltd. v. Florida Department of Commerce, Fla.App. 3rd 1971, 252 So. 2d 396.
Without expressing any view as to the correctness of the above cited decision, we find that the holding there is not applicable here. In that case, the post office department failed to timely deliver the notice “due to the Christmas — New Year’s mail glut.” Under those circumstances, the Court of Appeals simply held that the employer (Miami Dolphins) should have been permitted to present a defense to the failure to act within the prescribed 10 day period. Such are not the facts sub judice. Here, notwithstanding the Christmas — -New Year’s glut, the post office department acted promptly and efficiently and the only reason FSU failed to receive the notice and decision was because it closed its doors and did not arrange for anyone of responsibility or authority to receive and examine its mail,
Decisions of appeals referees become final unless appealed within the time prescribed by the applicable statute. (See F. S. 443.07(4) (b) and F.S. 443.07(4) (c)). The powers and authority of administrative boards, commissions and officers are limited to those granted, either expressly or by necessary implication, by the statutes of their creation. (Florida Industrial Commission v. National Trucking Co., Fla.App. 1st 1958, 107 So. 2d 397).
The petition for certiorari is denied.
SMITH, J., and SACK, MARTIN, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Espinosa v. Cableoptics, Inc., 807 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…eech v. Orlando Leasing Sys., 765 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Linderman v. K.B. Beach Suites, Ltd. PRT, 751 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Delgado v. Concentrated Chem. Co., 644 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Florida State University v. Jenkins, 323 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). Where, however, it has been alleged by a party that a referee’s decision sought to be appealed was not timely mailed, appellate courts have held on due process grounds that the appellant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on…
-
Applegate v. Nat'l Health Care Affiliates, Inc., 667 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…particular circumstances of the case, specifically, the fact that the appellant did not receive timely notice of the adverse decision due to a misunderstanding regarding the need to file a change of address) with Florida State University v. Jenkins, 323 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) (appellant’s failure to receive timely notice because the university department to which the decision was mailed had closed for two weeks was not accepted as grounds for avoiding the effect of late filing of the appeal). Such fac…
-
Schwartz v. The Babcock Co. & Dep't of Labor & Emp. Sec., 407 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Florida State University v. Jenkins, 323 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Luzier v. Florida Department of Commerce, Industrial Relations Commission, 307 So. 2d 503 (Fla.2d DCA 1975); §§ 443.07(4)(b) and (4)(c), Fla.Stat. (1979).…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fla. Indus. Comm'n ex rel. Special Disability Fund v. Nat'l Trucking Co., 107 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- State v. Carroll, 252 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)