Pagliaro v. Penske Auto Centers, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pagliaro v. Penske Auto Centers, Inc.

773 So. 2d 1174, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 15016, 2000 WL 1716240

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 17, 2000

DocketNo. 2D00-1108

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 773 So. 2d 1174 (Pagliaro v. Penske Auto Centers, 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

Pagliaro v. Penske Auto Centers, Inc., 773 So. 2d 1174, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 15016, 2000 WL 1716240 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Guy Pagliaro challenges an order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission (UAC) dismissing his appeal as untimely. Because there is substantial, competent evidence in the record to support the dismissal, we affirm.

Section 443.151(4)(b)(3), Florida Statutes (1999), requires that appeals be filed within twenty days of the mailing date of the referee’s order. However, when a claimant alleges facts which would excuse untimeliness and the record supports such allegations, district courts, in order to ensure due process, have reversed for an evidentiary hearing to consider the circumstances surrounding the untimely filing. See, e.g., Apolinar v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 710 So.2d 199 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (remanding for evidentiary hearing where record indicated that claimant may not have received referee’s determination).

In the present case, the referee’s decision was mailed on January 21, 2000. Mr. Pagliaro filed his notice of appeal at his local unemployment office on February 17, 2000. He contends the UAC failed to advise him of its ruling in a timely manner; however, the record indicates that he received the referee’s determination on January 25, 2000. Mr. Pagliaro has therefore failed to establish that the untimeliness of his notice of appeal was due to an error attributable to the UAC. We must therefore affirm the dismissal of his appeal.

Affirmed.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and GREEN and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Guy Pagliaro challenges an order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission (UAC) dismissing his appeal as untimely. Because there is substantial, competent evidence in the record to support the dismissal, we affirm.

Section 443.151(4)(b)(3), Florida Statutes (1999), requires that appeals be filed within twenty days of the mailing date of the referee’s order. However, when a claimant alleges facts which would excuse untimeliness and the record supports such allegations, district courts, in order to ensure due process, have reversed for an evidentiary hearing to consider the circumstances surrounding the untimely filing. See, e.g., Apolinar v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 710 So.2d 199 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (remanding for evidentiary hearing where record indicated that claimant may not have received referee’s determination).

In the present case, the referee’s decision was mailed on January 21, 2000. Mr. Pagliaro filed his notice of appeal at his local unemployment office on February 17, 2000. He contends the UAC failed to advise him of its ruling in a timely manner; however, the record indicates that he received the referee’s determination on January 25, 2000. Mr. Pagliaro has therefore failed to establish that the untimeliness of his notice of appeal was due to an error attributable to the UAC. We must therefore affirm the dismissal of his appeal.

Affirmed.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and GREEN and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

773 So. 2d 1174, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 15016, 2000 WL 1716240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pagliaro-v-penske-auto-centers-inc-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack