Nickolan-Barron v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Nickolan-Barron v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission

859 So. 2d 594, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 18002, 2003 WL 22768672

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 25, 2003·No. No. 1D03-0660·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We hold that appellant’s facsimile transaction report, which indicates that appellant’s fax, i.e., her notice of appeal, was successfully transmitted to the Office of Appeals at the Agency for Workforce Innovation within the applicable time frame, constituted sufficient evidence that appellant timely faxed her notice of appeal. See Reynolds v. SV Cent. Dania Props., Inc., 849 So.2d 1181, 1182-83 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Espanioly v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 768 So.2d 1230, 1230 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); cf. Mendelsohn v. [595] Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 851 So.2d 208, 209 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Accordingly, we reverse the Unemployment Appeals Commission’s order affirming the appeals referee’s determination that the appeal was untimely and remand for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

BOOTH, BENTON and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We hold that appellant’s facsimile transaction report, which indicates that appellant’s fax, i.e., her notice of appeal, was successfully transmitted to the Office of Appeals at the Agency for Workforce Innovation within the applicable time frame, constituted sufficient evidence that appellant timely faxed her notice of appeal. See Reynolds v. SV Cent. Dania Props., Inc., 849 So.2d 1181, 1182-83 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Espanioly v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 768 So.2d 1230, 1230 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); cf. Mendelsohn v. [595] Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 851 So.2d 208, 209 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Accordingly, we reverse the Unemployment Appeals Commission’s order affirming the appeals referee’s determination that the appeal was untimely and remand for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

BOOTH, BENTON and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

Nickolan-Barron v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 859 So. 2d 594, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 18002, 2003 WL 22768672 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

859 So. 2d 594 (Nickolan-Barron v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related