JESUS CRESPO, APPELLANT,
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION AND DORAL HOSPITALITY 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.
The court reversed the FUAC's dismissal of an untimely appeal where the appellant presented newly discovered evidence in the form of a settlement agreement with his employer agreeing not to contest his unemployment benefits, treating the appeal as a request for redetermination under Florida Statutes § 443.151(3)(e)1.
An untimely appeal from a denial of unemployment benefits may be treated as a request for redetermination when the appellant presents newly discovered evidence, such as a settlement agreement where the employer agrees not to contest the claimant's entitlement to benefits.
[1] An untimely appeal from a denial of unemployment benefits may be treated as a request for redetermination under Fla. …
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Crespo failed to timely appeal the denial of his unemployment benefits, but presented a settlement agreement with his employer regarding an …
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 Appeal Of Unemployment Benefits Denial cases and more on FLexlaw
On Motion fob Clarification
We grant the motion for clarification, withdraw our previous opinion and substitute the following 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, he had settled a claim of employment discrimination with his employer through a settlement agreement in which the employer agreed not to contest his entitlement to his current receipt of unemployment benefits. Thus, his appeal is more in the nature of a request for redetermination pursuant to section 443.151(3)(e)l., Florida Statutes. As the employer agreed as part of the settlement not to contest his right to unemployment compensation, we vacate the order on appeal and remand this case to the FUAC for further remand to the Department of Economic Opportunity for consideration of the new information provided by appellant. That agency should hold a hearing to determine whether the appellant has a right to redetermination of the order denying his claim for benefits. See Ponce v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 47 So.3d 929, 932 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
MAY, C.J., WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Blaser v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Bridgestone-Firestone, Inc., 687 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Ponce v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 47 So. 3d 929 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)