Abreu v. Krama Construction Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Abreu v. Krama Construction Inc.

870 So. 2d 917, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 5465, 2004 WL 840256

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 21, 2004

DocketNo. 3D03-2555

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 870 So. 2d 917 (Abreu v. Krama Construction Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abreu v. Krama Construction Inc., 870 So. 2d 917, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 5465, 2004 WL 840256 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the order dismissing Abreu’s appeal from the appeal referee’s order denying unemployment compensation benefits. Abreu’s communications with the Commission demonstrate that he did not receive notice of the hearing, nor any other document thereafter. Hence, the record does not contain competent substantial evidence to support the Commission’s finding that Abreu’s appeal was untimely. Guerrero v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 855 So.2d 266 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Applegate v. Nat’l Health Care Affiliates, Inc., 667 So.2d 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Landrum v. James Rummer Timber Harvesting, Inc., 645 So.2d 577 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). In order to ensure that Abreu’s due process rights are observed, we remand for an evidentiary hearing on this issue. If the Commission determines that Abreu did not receive notice of the decision, his appeal shall be allowed to proceed. Guerrero.

[918]*918Reversed and remanded for an eviden-tiary hearing.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the order dismissing Abreu’s appeal from the appeal referee’s order denying unemployment compensation benefits. Abreu’s communications with the Commission demonstrate that he did not receive notice of the hearing, nor any other document thereafter. Hence, the record does not contain competent substantial evidence to support the Commission’s finding that Abreu’s appeal was untimely. Guerrero v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 855 So.2d 266 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Applegate v. Nat’l Health Care Affiliates, Inc., 667 So.2d 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Landrum v. James Rummer Timber Harvesting, Inc., 645 So.2d 577 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). In order to ensure that Abreu’s due process rights are observed, we remand for an evidentiary hearing on this issue. If the Commission determines that Abreu did not receive notice of the decision, his appeal shall be allowed to proceed. Guerrero.

[918]*918Reversed and remanded for an eviden-tiary hearing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

870 So. 2d 917, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 5465, 2004 WL 840256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abreu-v-krama-construction-inc-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack