GEORGE M. MOTHERWELL, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT 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.
Motherwell appealed the denial of unemployment benefits after failing to timely report to the unemployment office and submit proof of job service registration. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the administrative determination that Motherwell was ineligible for benefits during the period he failed to comply with statutory reporting requirements.
The court affirmed the Commission's denial of benefits, holding that the statutory and regulatory requirements for timely reporting and filing successive claims are valid exercises of administrative authority and were fairly applied to Motherwell, despite his argument that the infractions were trivial or minor.
[1] A claimant must file a claim in accordance with the division's rules to be eligible for unemployment compensation benefits for a weekly pay period.
[2] An individual who fails to report for a period of more than fourteen days following their last report must make a new claim to become eligible for future unemployment com…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“in order to be eligible to receive compensation benefits for a weekly pay period, a claimant must lodge a claim in accordance with the division's rules”
Establishes the statutory requirement for eligibility based on compliance with claim filing procedures
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMotherwell filed for unemployment benefits on March 26, 1989, and received notice that he must register with the job service office and bring proof of…
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 Timeliness Of Claim Filing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission affirming a referee’s report which denied claimant compensation benefits. We affirm.
The appellant filed his initial claim for unemployment benefits on March 26, 1989. His first compensation payment contained a notice informing him that he must separately register for employment with the job service office and bring proof of registration to the unemployment claims office or further benefits would not be paid. Appellant reported to the job service office and registered. He failed, however, to bring to the claims office his proof of registration. When further compensation payments were not forthcoming, he telephoned the unemployment office and then, on May 16, 1989, he personally appeared and reported. No further compensation was paid. After an appeal, the claims examiner found that the appellant had waited in excess of the required fourteen-day reporting period and he further had not shown good cause for the submission of the late claim. The claims examiner then determined the appellant to be ineligible for benefits for the period of April 9, 1989 through May 13, 1989.
Section 443.091(1), Florida Statutes (1987) provides that in order to be eligible to receive compensation benefits for a weekly pay period, a claimant must lodge a claim in accordance with the division’s rules. Rule 38B-2.11(1) requires that such a claim be made either in person or by mail on a continuing basis in order to remain eligible for further weekly compensation payments. The same rule provides that an individual who fails to report for a period of more than fourteen days following his last report must make a new claim in order to become eligible for future compensation benefits.
The appellant admits infractions but argues that they were trivial or minor. While the administrative requirement of filing successive claims facially appears to be somewhat duplicitous, we cannot say that, the commission has promulgated a rule beyond its authority or applied it unfairly to the appellant. The purpose of the rule is undoubtedly to assure the commission that a claimant has not found employment and thus remains eligible for unemployment compensation benefits.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ponce v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 595 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. § 443.091(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1989); see Motherwell v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 562 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).…
-
Polston v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 664 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…als Commission affirming the appeals referee’s denial of benefits to appellant. Appellant demonstrated good cause for the late submission of her claims cards required by the unemployment office. Cf. Motherwell v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 562 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Reversed and remanded.…