Reloba v. Westside Sanitation, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Reloba v. Westside Sanitation, Inc.

711 So. 2d 141, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 4874, 1998 WL 219836

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 6, 1998

DocketNo. 98-217

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 711 So. 2d 141 (Reloba v. Westside Sanitation, 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

Reloba v. Westside Sanitation, Inc., 711 So. 2d 141, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 4874, 1998 WL 219836 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Lazaro Reloba appeals an order denying him unemployment benefits. He did not attend the hearing before the referee, which resulted in an order accepting the appellee employer’s reasons for discharging claimant, and denying unemployment benefits. He appealed to the Unemployment Appeals Commission, which affirmed the referee’s decision, and now seeks review in this court.

In his brief, claimant states that he could not attend the referee’s hearing for medical reasons, and offers medical documentation to that effect. Although we are sympathetic with the claimant’s position, it was necessary for the claimant either (a) to contact the referee as soon as possible after the referee’s [142]*142hearing, explain why he could not attend the hearing, and request that the hearing be reopened, or (b) include the statement of medical reasons in his appeal to the Unemployment Appeals Commission, which had to be filed within twenty days after the referee’s decision. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 38E-2.003(1); Cueto v. One Stop Fashion, 635 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). We are advised by counsel for the Unemployment Appeals Commission that where the appeal to the Commission indicates a medical or other valid excuse for failing to attend the hearing, the Commission’s practice is to remand the matter to the referee to conduct a hearing to determine whether there are good grounds to reopen proceedings before the referee. Since no timely request was presented to the referee or the Commission, this court is unable to order a new hearing.

Because the referee’s findings now stand as the established facts of the case, and no error of law has been shown, the order denying unemployment compensation benefits is affirmed. See Rodz v. Merchandise Servs., Inc., 689 So.2d 1301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Lazaro Reloba appeals an order denying him unemployment benefits. He did not attend the hearing before the referee, which resulted in an order accepting the appellee employer’s reasons for discharging claimant, and denying unemployment benefits. He appealed to the Unemployment Appeals Commission, which affirmed the referee’s decision, and now seeks review in this court.

In his brief, claimant states that he could not attend the referee’s hearing for medical reasons, and offers medical documentation to that effect. Although we are sympathetic with the claimant’s position, it was necessary for the claimant either (a) to contact the referee as soon as possible after the referee’s [142]*142hearing, explain why he could not attend the hearing, and request that the hearing be reopened, or (b) include the statement of medical reasons in his appeal to the Unemployment Appeals Commission, which had to be filed within twenty days after the referee’s decision. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 38E-2.003(1); Cueto v. One Stop Fashion, 635 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). We are advised by counsel for the Unemployment Appeals Commission that where the appeal to the Commission indicates a medical or other valid excuse for failing to attend the hearing, the Commission’s practice is to remand the matter to the referee to conduct a hearing to determine whether there are good grounds to reopen proceedings before the referee. Since no timely request was presented to the referee or the Commission, this court is unable to order a new hearing.

Because the referee’s findings now stand as the established facts of the case, and no error of law has been shown, the order denying unemployment compensation benefits is affirmed. See Rodz v. Merchandise Servs., Inc., 689 So.2d 1301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

711 So. 2d 141, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 4874, 1998 WL 219836, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reloba-v-westside-sanitation-inc-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack