DANIEL C. COSTARELL, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Costarell appealed a decision denying him unemployment benefits for failing to continue claiming benefits during the pendency of his appeal from an initial ineligibility determination. The court affirmed, holding that the statutory requirement to file claims applies even during appeals and rejected prior conflicting authority from the Third District.
A claimant must continue to file claims for unemployment benefits during the pendency of an appeal from an ineligibility determination. The statutory filing requirement of section 443.091(a) is mandatory and clear, not advisory or directory, and the legislature's intent was to require continued filing regardless of pending appeals.
[1] A claimant must continue to file for unemployment benefits during the pendency of an appeal regarding eligibility.
[2] The statutory requirement for claimants to file for unemployment benefits is mandatory and not merely advisory.
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 statutory requirement to file for benefits is clear and hence the referee's determination was legally correct”
Establishes the court's holding that the filing requirement is mandatory and unambiguous
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCostarell was determined ineligible for unemployment benefits and appealed that determination to the appeals referee. During the pendency of his appea…
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 Legislative Intent cases and more on FLexlaw
VILLANTI, Judge.
Costarell challenges the decision of the Unemployment Appeals Commission (UAC) affirming the appeals referee’s decision that he was not entitled to benefits for a portion of the time he was unemployed. The sole basis for the UAC’s af-firmance is that Costarell failed to continue claiming unemployment benefits as required by section 443.091(a), Florida Statutes (2002), during the pendency of his appeal from the appeals referee’s determination that he was ineligible for benefits. We affirm.
In compliance with its professional obligation to disclose adverse authority to the court, the UAC directed this court to Dines v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 730 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). In Dines, the UAC denied a claimant benefits on the sole basis that he failed to file claims during the pendency of his appeal. The Third District determined that requiring the claimant to file claims during the pendency of his appeal would be tantamount to requiring the claimant to “perform! ] a series of useless acts.” Id. at 379 (quoting Savage v. Macy’s E., Inc., 719 So. 2d 1208, 1209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)).
Additionally, it determined the statutory filing requirement of section 443.091 to be “advisory or directory only.” Id.
We find Dines’s reasoning unpersuasive and decline to follow it in this case. In our view, the statutory requirement to file for benefits is clear and hence the referee’s determination was legally correct. See Joshua v. City of Gainesville, 768 So. 2d 432, 435 (Fla.2000) (noting that the first step a court must take in interpreting a statute is to look at its actual language and then proceed to rules of statutory construction only when the language is unclear).
Moreover, the legislature’s recent amendment to sections 443.091 and 443.111 reinforces our conclusion that its original intent was to require claimants to continue to file for benefits during the pendency of any appeal. See eh.2003-36, §§ 23, 25, Laws of Fla. (“Each claimant must continue to report regardless of any appeal or pending appeal relating to her or his eligibility or disqualification for benefits.”).1 We affirm the denial of benefits to Cos-tarell for the period of time during which he failed to file claims while his appeal was pending. In so doing, we certify conflict with Dines, 730 So. 2d 378.
Affirmed; conflict certified.
CANADY and WALLACE, JJ., Concur. . We recognize that the 2002 statute applies to Costarell. Nevertheless, we may consider this later amendment in determining the legislative intent behind the 2002 version. See Finley v. Scott, 707 So. 2d 1112, 1116-17 (Fla.1998).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Costarell v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 916 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 2005)…ANSTEAD, J. We have for review the decision in Costarell v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 874 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), based upon certified conflict with the decision in Dines v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 730 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We quash the decision in Costarell and a…
Authorities Cited
- Deneace M. Joshua v. City OF Gainesville, 768 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 2000)
- Geri E. Finley v. Scott, 707 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 1998)
- Savage v. MacY'S E., Inc., 719 So. 2d 1208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Dines v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 730 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)