Case ID: so2d_558/html/1102-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. GRIFFIN, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

METAL MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, DIVISION OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION, Appellee.
    No. 89-1317.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    April 5, 1990.
    Thomas H. Tukdarian of Mateer, Har-bert & Bates, P.A., Orlando, for appellant.
    Louise T. Sadler, Tallahassee, for appel-lee.
   PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

COBB and W. SHARP, JJ., concur.

GRIFFIN, J., concurs specially with opinion.

GRIFFIN, Judge,

concurring specially.

I agree with appellant that some factual or legal vehicle may be available to the appellant that would avoid the “jurisdictional bar” asserted by the Division of Unemployment Compensation; however, I disagree that the “excusable neglect” argument, which was exclusively relied upon by appellant' below, is such a vehicle. The record is inadequate to establish a basis upon which this court could rule on any of appellant’s other points.