CARL BLASER, APPELLANT,
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION AND BRIDGESTONE-FIRESTONE, INC., APPELLEES
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.
Carl Blaser appealed an Unemployment Appeals Commission order affirming dismissal of his untimely appeal for failing to file within 20 days. The court reversed, finding that although the appeal was technically late, the Division of Labor's erroneous record-keeping warranted treating the appeal as a timely request for redetermination based on division error.
Although Blaser's appeal was technically untimely under the 20-day filing requirement, the court reversed and remanded because the appeal should have been treated as a request for redetermination due to division error, which could be filed within one year of the end of the last compensable week under Florida Statute § 443.151(3)(c).
[1] An appeal from an order approving a notice of withdrawal of an appeal is untimely if not filed within the statutory period for appeals from the underlying dismissal order…
[2] A claimant's assertion of not being informed of the need to appeal does not excuse an untimely appeal when the claimant received the dismissal order containing the appeal…
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 entire proceeding is the result of inaccurate information being recorded by an employee of the Department of Labor which resulted in the entry of an order denying benefits from an employer for whom appellant still worked and against whom appellant had filed no claim.”
Establishes that the division's own error, not claimant misconduct, was the root cause of the problem
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn employee of the Department of Labor made an error in recording information, resulting in an order denying Blaser unemployment benefits from an empl…
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 Filing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission affirming a decision of an appeals referee determining that it was without jurisdiction to decide the issues because the appeal was untimely filed. The appeal was directed to an order approving the appellant’s notice of withdrawal of an appeal. It appears that if we consider this an appeal, it was untimely filed as it was not presented within 20 days of the referee’s dismissal of the claim. Appellant alleges that he was not informed that he should appeal the decision at hand. He does not make any claim that he did not receive the order of dismissal which contained an admonition that any appeal must be made within twenty days. Therefore, his late-filed appeal to the unemployment commission was untimely.
However, this entire proceeding is the result of inaccurate information being recorded by an employee of the Department of Labor which resulted in the entry of an order denying benefits from an employer for whom appellant still worked and against whom appellant had filed no claim. Appellant’s appeal was really a request for redetermination of the proceeding because there was an error committed by the division. The division should have treated this as a request to reconsider the benefits due to division error which was filed within a year of the end of the last compensable week. We remand to the division to determine whether the appellant is entitled to the redetermination of benefits. See § 443.151(3)(c), Fla. Stat. (1995).
We note that this redetermination will not result in the employer being charged with any benefits, because the appellant was never discharged by this employer. This matter is not moot, because the erroneous order had caused appellant to be disallowed benefits in a second appeal from a different employer. WARNER, PARIENTE and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reeves v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg., 782 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…n error has occurred in connection therewith or whenever new evidence or information pertinent to such determination has been discovered subsequent to any previous determination or redetermi-nation.” See, e.g., Blaser v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 687 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). We reject DBPR’s contention that its July 1999 letter questioning appellant’s eligibility for unemployment compensation because he worked in a Senior Management position constituted “new information” to the Division under sect…
-
WHS Trucking LLC v. Reemployment Assistance Appeals Comm'n & Michael Henry, 183 So. 3d 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…analysis is different when it involves errors of fact or typographical errors and, by reasonable analogy, internal inconsistencies in an order such as here. They can and should be subject to correction. See also Blaser v. Unemployment Appeals Com’n, 687 So. 2d 337, 338 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (holding that the redetermination statute in section 443.151(3) required remand — after the ap- ■ peal time had passed but before the passage of one year — to reconsider a benefits determination due to division error). The…
-
Crespo v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Doral Hospitality Inc., 84 So. 3d 1117 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…llowing in its place. Appellant challenges the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission’s (“FUAC”) order dismissing as untimely his appeal of the denial of unemployment benefits. We reverse on the authority of Blaser v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 687 So. 2d 337, 338 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). As in Blaser, appellant failed to file a timely appeal from the denial of his benefits, but it is apparent from the record that he was attempting to show newly discovered evidence which would affect the result. Specifically…