STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. WILLIAM M. OWRA, RELATOR,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY AND T. W. STEWART & ASSOCIATES, 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.
A claimant denied unemployment compensation benefits appealed after not receiving timely notice of the disqualification. The court held that denying the appeal solely due to failure to receive the notice constitutes a denial of due process, and the claimant is entitled to have his appeal heard on the merits.
The court held that petitioner's appeal to the appeals referee was timely and that denying the appeal under these circumstances amounts to a denial of due process. The court issued a peremptory writ of mandamus, quashed the Industrial Relations Commission's order, and reinstated the appeals referee's decision for the employer's appeal to be heard on the merits.
[1] An appeal filed after the statutory deadline may be considered timely if the appellant did not receive notice of the determination being appealed, and the appeal was file…
[2] Denial of an appeal under circumstances where the appellant did not receive notice of the determination amounts to a denial of due process.
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“the denial of an appeal under similar factual circumstances amounts to a denial of due process”
Establishes the legal principle that denying appeal rights when notice was not received violates due process
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn January 10, 1977, the claims examiner mailed a disqualification notice to Owra giving him 10 days to appeal (until January 20). Owra never received…
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
HAVERFIELD, Judge.
Claimant, William M. Owra, by way of certiorari seeks review of an order of the Industrial Relations Commission that his appeal to the appeals referee was untimely.
On January 10,1977 the claims examiner mailed a notice of claims determination to petitioner disqualifying him from receiving unemployment compensation benefits. Petitioner had 10 days from the date of mailing (or until January 20, 1977) to appeal this determination; however, he never received the notice. Petitioner first learned of the disqualification when he appeared at the local claims office on January 21, his normal reporting date, and thereupon he immediately filed an appeal. The appeals referee determined that under the circumstances petitioner’s appeal was timely and reversed the disqualification determination of the claims examiner. Petitioner's employer appealed the appeals referee’s decision to the Industrial Relations Commission.
On April 19 the Commission entered an order determining that petitioner’s January 21 appeal to the appeals referee was untimely, and the appeals referee lacked jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s appeal as the determination of the claims examiner became final on January 20. The order quashed the decision of the appeals referee and reinstated the disqualification determination of the claims examiner.
Petitioner argues his appeal to the appeals referee was timely.
On two previous occasions this court has been presented with the identical jurisdictional issue and we determined that the denial of an appeal under similar factual circumstances amounts to a denial of due process. See State ex rel. Martinez v. Fla. Div., etc., 339 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) and Polatnick v. Fla. Dept. of Commerce, 349 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). We find likewise in the ease at bar and hereby treat this cause as a petition for writ of mandamus and hold that petitioner is entitled to the issuance of such a peremptory writ.
The April 19 order of the Industrial Relations Commission is quashed, the decision of the appeals referee is reinstated and the cause is remanded to the Commission with directions to consider the appeal by petitioner’s employer from the decision of the appeals referee on the merits and to hold a hearing. We assume these directions will be followed without the necessity for the issuance of a final peremptory writ of mandamus.
So ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Getelman v. Burton R. Levey, 481 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…within ten days of mailing of the adverse determination letter, where facts in record failed to establish that date on the letter was also the date the letter was mailed); State ex rel. Owra v. Florida Dept. of Commerce, Div. of Employment Security, 351 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (petitioner was entitled to an appeal, notwithstanding his failure to file a response within ten days of mailing of the adverse determination letter, where he claimed not to have received the letter and a denial of an appeal under…
-
Burina Robinson v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Morrison, Inc., 526 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…ismissal of her February 24, 1985 appeal constitutes a denial of due process. See Pierre v. Oriente Sugar Cane Planting, Inc., 504 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); State ex rel. Owra v. Florida Department of Commerce, Division of Employment Security, 351 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Accordingly, I concur in the result attained by the majority opinion.…
-
Holmes v. City OF W. Palm Beach & Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 627 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…on v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 526 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Pierre v. Oriente Sugar Cane Planting, 504 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Teater v. Department of Commerce, 370 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Owra v. Dept. of Commerce, 351 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Polatnick v. Florida Dep’t of Commerce, 349 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Miami Dolphins Ltd. v. Florida Dep’t of Commerce, 252 So. 2d, 396 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). Appellant’s letter to appellee dated December 12, 1992, disputes tha…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Piver v. Birman, 349 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Cabrera v. Lamas, 339 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Carlos A. Martinez v. Florida Division of Commerce, 339 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)