SUSANNE R. MURPHY, 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.
Ms. Murphy appealed an Unemployment Appeals Commission order requiring her to repay $550 in unemployment benefits due to a clerical error in the filing system. The court vacated and remanded, finding the order lacked competent substantial evidence and treating the matter as a scrivener's error rather than true overpayment.
The court held that the order lacked competent substantial evidence to support a finding that Ms. Murphy received benefits to which she was not entitled, and vacated and remanded for the appeals referee to determine if Ms. Murphy was eligible for benefits for the correct weeks, with instructions to amend the Agency's records if eligibility is found and strike the repayment order.
[1] An unemployment benefits agency's records may be amended to reflect correct dates when a claimant inadvertently entered incorrect dates due to a system error.
[2] A scrivener's error in recording unemployment benefit dates does not, in itself, constitute an overpayment of benefits to which a claimant was not entitled.
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 order lacks competent substantial evidence to support a finding that Ms. Murphy has received benefits to which she was not entitled.”
Establishes the lack of evidentiary support for the Commission's determination requiring repayment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMs. Murphy sought unemployment benefits for the workweeks of November 15-19 and 22-26, 2004. When attempting to file online, the system defaulted to t…
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 Unemployment Benefits Eligibility cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Susanne Murphy, appearing pro se, appeals a decision of the Unemployment Appeals Commission which requires her to reimburse the Agency for Workforce Innovation (“Agency”) for unemployment benefits in the amount of $550. We vacate the Commission’s order and remand for further proceedings.
Ms. Murphy claims, and has claimed all along, that she was entitled to unemployment compensation benefits for the workweeks of November 15-19 and 22-26, 2004.
However, when she attempted to file online for benefits, the online system defaulted to the subsequent pay period and would not allow her to input the correct dates. The appeals referee found this error to have been made “inadvertently.” Ms. Murphy notified the Agency of the problem as early as February 2, 2005. The Agency does not argue that Ms. Murphy is not entitled to any benefits; it argues only that she is not entitled to benefits for the dates mistakenly recorded — an argument uncontested by Ms. Murphy.
Accordingly, we are perplexed why the Agency’s records were not simply amended to reflect the correct dates for which Ms. Murphy was entitled to benefits. This is, after all, not a case of overpayment; rather, it is simply a case of a claimant receiving benefits to which she was entitled, but of which the Agency’s records reflect the incorrect dates. In essence, we are confronted with a scrivener’s error. The order lacks competent substantial evidence to support a finding that Ms. Murphy has received benefits to which she was not entitled. We therefore vacate the order and remand this case to the appeals referee to make a definitive finding of whether Ms. Murphy was eligible for unemployment benefits for the weeks of November 15-19 and 22-26, 2004. If the appeals referee finds that Ms. Murphy was indeed eligible, the Agency’s records shall be amended to reflect the payment of $550 for the correct time period and the order purporting to require Ms. Murphy to reimburse the Agency shall be struck. “It is very well to say that those who deal with the Government should turn square corners. But there is no reason why the square corners should constitute a one-way street.” Fed. Crop Ins. Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380, 387-88, 68 S.Ct. 1, 92 L.Ed. 10 (1947) (Jackson, J., dissenting).
VACATED AND REMANDED with INSTRUCTIONS.
KAHN, C.J., WOLF and BENTON, JJ., concur.