CLIFFORD FORT, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION AND WALGREEN COMPANY, 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.
The court held that the Unemployment Appeals Commission did not err in dismissing the appeal as untimely.
Clifford Fort appealed an order disqualifying him from unemployment benefits 361 days after the notice of decision was mailed. The UAC dismissed his a…
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 Notice Of Decision cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Clifford Fort appeals the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission’s (UAC) order dismissing his appeal as untimely. We affirm.
On June 19, 1998, the appeals referee concluded that Fort was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he was discharged from employment for misconduct connected with work. The notice of decision was mailed to Fort that same day. Fort appealed the decision 361 days later, and the UAC dismissed the appeal as untimely filed.
We find no error in the UAC’s decision to dismiss the appeal. Section 443.151(4)(b)3., Florida Statutes (1997), requires a party to appeal decisions of the appeals referee within twenty days after the date of mailing the notice of decision. Fort has not offered an explanation for his late filing, except to say that “bills and letters” were sent to his old address in December requiring him to repay his unemployment compensation. Although there are decisions from the district courts of appeal that have carved out exceptions to section 443.151(4)(b)3., they do not apply in this case because Fort has not provided an adequate explanation for his failure to appeal.
Affirmed.
PATTERSON, C.J., and PARKER and BLUE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wise v. Warner, 932 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…d not bother with certified mail to Wise’s address; rather, “[t]he failure to comply with the statutory requirements has been excused when the record shows that the party to be served is deliberately refusing to accept delivery.” Woodworth v. Smith, 773 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (reversing where the trial court denied the motion to quash service though defendant had actual notice based on regular mail); see also Jennings v. Montenegro, 792 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (stating that “the failure of deli…