Case Name: Nadine G. MENDELSOHN, Appellant, v. FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2003-06-26
Citations: 851 So. 2d 208
Docket Number: No. 1D02-377
Parties: Nadine G. MENDELSOHN, Appellant, v. FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, Appellee.
Judges: HAWKES, J., concurs; BENTON, J., Dissents with Opinion.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 851
Pages: 208–211

Head Matter:
Nadine G. MENDELSOHN, Appellant, v. FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, Appellee.
No. 1D02-377.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
June 26, 2003.
Rehearing Denied July 31, 2003.
Nadine G. Mendelsohn, Pro Se.
John D. Maher of Unemployment Appeals Commission, Tallahassee, for Appel-lee.

Opinion:
ALLEN, C.J.
The appellant challenges an order by which the Unemployment Appeals Commission upheld an appeals referee's dismissal of an administrative appeal after the appellant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing. The appellant sought Commission review of the referee's decision, attempting to invoke such review with a request for a redetermination. The Commission concluded that the request was not timely filed and that the referee's decision had thus become final, whereby the case was dismissed.
The record indicates that the appellant faxed a request for a redetermination to the local appeals office, but that the fax was sent and received more than twenty days after the referee's dismissal order was mailed to the appellant. The request was thus an untimely filing under section 443.151(4)(b)3, Florida Statutes, and the Commission noted that the appeal was outside the statutory time limit. However, because the appellant asserted that she had sent an earlier fax, the Commission remanded the ease to the appeals referee for evidence as to this allegation.
At the hearing, the appellant testified that she had sent an earlier fax, but she acknowledged that her fax machine does not indicate whether a transmission is successfully delivered. She also indicated that she was having problems with her fax machine, and that it would sometimes shut off before a transmission was made. The appellant testified that she did not think that had happened with her earlier fax, and she submitted a copy of a phone bill showing a one minute call to a local number on that date. However, the appellant did not present any evidence to confirm that the transmission was actually completed or received.
In the order now being appealed, the Commission found that the appellant's re-determination request was untimely. This finding was made after an evidentiary hearing according with the requirements of Ebersol v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 845 So.2d 945, (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Appellate review of this factual finding is governed by § 120.68(7)(b), Florida Statutes, which precludes an assessment as to the weight of the evidence and instead directs that factual determinations should be set aside when unsupported by competent substantial evidence. But there was such evidentiary support for the Commission's determination here, given the appellant's testimony regarding the problems with her fax machine and the absence of any evidence to show that a timely fax request was ever received for filing in the appeals office.
Because the appellant failed to establish a timely filing under section 443.151(4)(b)3, the case below was properly dismissed and the appealed order is therefore affirmed.
HAWKES, J., concurs; BENTON, J., Dissents with Opinion.