Noriega, Chopp & Schatz, P.A. v. Pena

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Noriega, Chopp & Schatz, P.A. v. Pena

417 So. 2d 312, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20728

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 27, 1982

DocketNo. 82-18

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 417 So. 2d 312 (Noriega, Chopp & Schatz, P.A. v. Pena) 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

Noriega, Chopp & Schatz, P.A. v. Pena, 417 So. 2d 312, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20728 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission granting appellee Elizabeth Pena unemployment compensation benefits pursuant to her claim against her employer, Noriega, Chopp and Schatz, P.A., for wrongfully discharging her from her job as receptionist.

[313]*313Appellant contends that the Unemployment Appeals Commission erroneously denied its request to submit additional evidence after the Commission had entered its order in favor of the appellee, and that the notice of hearing of the Appeals Referee was insufficient in that it provided for less time than required by the Rules of the Department of Labor and Employment Security, Unemployment Appeals Commission.

We hold that there was no abuse of discretion shown in the Commission’s denial of the employer’s motion for rehearing for the purpose of introducing additional evidence. It appears from the record that the employer neither requested nor suggested that a continuance of the hearing be granted for the purpose of presenting additional evidence. The request for a rehearing was made after the Appeals Referee had issued a decision granting benefits to the employee. Accordingly, the Commission did not abuse its discretion in denying the employer’s request to be allowed to introduce additional evidence under the facts and circumstances as appear from the record. See Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.G. Co., Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); section 443.151(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1981).

As to the notice of hearing complained of, we hold that no reversible error has been made to appear. Appellant’s failure to raise this issue before either the Appeals Referee or the Commission precludes further review. Scott v. Florida Department of Commerce, Division of Employment Security, 353 So.2d 1192 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission granting appellee Elizabeth Pena unemployment compensation benefits pursuant to her claim against her employer, Noriega, Chopp and Schatz, P.A., for wrongfully discharging her from her job as receptionist.

[313]*313Appellant contends that the Unemployment Appeals Commission erroneously denied its request to submit additional evidence after the Commission had entered its order in favor of the appellee, and that the notice of hearing of the Appeals Referee was insufficient in that it provided for less time than required by the Rules of the Department of Labor and Employment Security, Unemployment Appeals Commission.

We hold that there was no abuse of discretion shown in the Commission’s denial of the employer’s motion for rehearing for the purpose of introducing additional evidence. It appears from the record that the employer neither requested nor suggested that a continuance of the hearing be granted for the purpose of presenting additional evidence. The request for a rehearing was made after the Appeals Referee had issued a decision granting benefits to the employee. Accordingly, the Commission did not abuse its discretion in denying the employer’s request to be allowed to introduce additional evidence under the facts and circumstances as appear from the record. See Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.G. Co., Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); section 443.151(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1981).

As to the notice of hearing complained of, we hold that no reversible error has been made to appear. Appellant’s failure to raise this issue before either the Appeals Referee or the Commission precludes further review. Scott v. Florida Department of Commerce, Division of Employment Security, 353 So.2d 1192 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

417 So. 2d 312, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20728, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/noriega-chopp-schatz-pa-v-pena-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack