Bolduc v. Unemployment Appeals Commission & Human Resources, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bolduc v. Unemployment Appeals Commission & Human Resources, Inc.

804 So. 2d 1283, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 759, 2002 WL 111610

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 30, 2002

DocketNo. 2D01-2973

StatusPublished

This text of 804 So. 2d 1283 (Bolduc v. Unemployment Appeals Commission & Human Resources, 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

Bolduc v. Unemployment Appeals Commission & Human Resources, Inc., 804 So. 2d 1283, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 759, 2002 WL 111610 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ALTENBERND, Judge.

Wayne J. Bolduc appeals an order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission (UAC) that denied him unemployment benefits. Based upon the UAC’s concession of error, we reverse.

A claims examiner initially determined that Mr. Bolduc was entitled to unemployment benefits. Mr. Bolduc’s employer attempted to appeal that decision. An appeals referee heard the appeal and found that Mr. Bolduc was ineligible for benefits because he had been discharged for misconduct. Mr. Bolduc appealed this decision to the UAC. Although the UAC affirmed the appeals referee’s decision, it now concedes that its order was in error because the employer’s appeal of the claims examiner’s determination was untimely. Thus, the appeals referee should have dismissed the appeal, leaving intact the claims examiner’s determination. Based upon this concession of error, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

NORTHCUTT and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.

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

ALTENBERND, Judge.

Wayne J. Bolduc appeals an order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission (UAC) that denied him unemployment benefits. Based upon the UAC’s concession of error, we reverse.

A claims examiner initially determined that Mr. Bolduc was entitled to unemployment benefits. Mr. Bolduc’s employer attempted to appeal that decision. An appeals referee heard the appeal and found that Mr. Bolduc was ineligible for benefits because he had been discharged for misconduct. Mr. Bolduc appealed this decision to the UAC. Although the UAC affirmed the appeals referee’s decision, it now concedes that its order was in error because the employer’s appeal of the claims examiner’s determination was untimely. Thus, the appeals referee should have dismissed the appeal, leaving intact the claims examiner’s determination. Based upon this concession of error, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

NORTHCUTT and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

804 So. 2d 1283, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 759, 2002 WL 111610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bolduc-v-unemployment-appeals-commission-human-resources-inc-fladistctapp-2002.