Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; October 17, 2011; Florida; State Appellate Court
Michael Hood's appeal of the Commission’s final agency action, which affirmed the dismissal of his late administrative appeals regarding Unemployment Compensation eligibility, was denied. The Commission found that Hood did not present valid statutory grounds under section 120.68(7), Florida Statutes, to overturn the final order. The appeals were based on three Notices of Determination, mailed to Hood on May 19, 2010, which he acknowledged receiving shortly thereafter. Each Notice clearly outlined his appeal rights, the process for appealing via electronic means, regular mail, or facsimile, and emphasized a 20-day deadline for submission. Hood filed his appeals on September 1, 2010, 105 days past the deadline. During the administrative hearing, he testified that he believed he had clarified his situation with an adjuster, A.C. Miller, and thought no further action was necessary. However, the Appeals Referee dismissed his appeals as untimely, and the Commission upheld this decision, stating that Florida law does not allow for "good cause" exceptions for late appeals according to section 443.151(3)(c). Hood's argument for fairness and due process based on his interactions with the adjuster was rejected, as the statutory framework provided no leeway for late filings.
Rule 60BB-5.007 of the Florida Administrative Code mandates the dismissal of late-filed appeals without exceptions. However, section 443.151(4)(b)3., enacted in 2005, allows the Office of Appeals to order a claimant to show cause for a late appeal and to submit evidence of timely filing or “good cause” for the delay. This provision is not a statutory requirement but reflects a case-by-case approach previously established in court rulings, which necessitated consideration of circumstances surrounding late appeals.
In the present case, while the appellant was informed that the timeliness of his appeals would be scrutinized, there was no formal order to show cause issued. During the hearing, the appeals referee questioned the appellant about his late filing, yet his explanations did not demonstrate any significant contribution from the Commission to his delay. He acknowledged not utilizing available appeal methods, opting instead to contact a Commission employee for clarification on his ineligibility determinations. His assumption that no further action was necessary lacked foundation in any advice from the agency.
The procedures followed by the Commission were deemed appropriate, with no material procedural error affecting the fairness of the proceedings. The appellate review focuses on whether the process adhered to legal standards rather than the outcome of the case. Consequently, as the Commission acted within its jurisdiction and the appellant failed to establish grounds for overturning the final order, the decision is affirmed. Judges WOLF and THOMAS concurred.
