MacHado v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission
48 So. 3d 1004
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2010Background
- Machado appeals an order that his administrative appeal to the UAC was untimely and that the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, thereby upholding the denial of benefits.
- Statutory framework: an appeals referee’s decision is final unless a timely review is requested within 20 days after notice; timely filing rules depend on mail postmark or receipt.
- Machado mailed his administrative appeal on May 19, 2010; the UAC received it May 27, 2010, with the envelope bearing a metered May 2010 imprint but no USPS postmark.
- UAC dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, treating the filing as untimely based on the lack of a proper postmark.
- The record includes Machado’s affidavit asserting timely mailing; the Court notes the referee decision mailing date and the 20-day period included a Sunday.
- The majority reverses and remands for an evidentiary hearing to determine timeliness; a due-process fairness exception may apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the filing was timely under the 20-day deadline. | Machado contends timely mailing within the period. | UAC treated lack of USPS postmark as fatal to timeliness. | Timeliness requires evidentiary hearing to determine mailing date. |
| Whether a metered postage imprint can substitute for a USPS postmark for filing. | Metered imprint did not conclusively show mailing date; affidavit supports timely mailing. | Metered imprint insufficient to establish mailing date; receipt controls. | Metered stamp cannot substitute for postmark; unresolved timeliness issue requires hearing. |
| Whether due process and fairness considerations justify relief from strict filing deadlines. | Due process concerns due to miscommunication about filing and timing. | No good cause exception in statute; must dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. | Exception applied; remand for evidentiary determination. |
| What procedure should follow on remand to resolve timeliness efficiently? | Remand for hearing is appropriate to ascertain timely mailing. | Hearing is necessary to resolve factual timing issues. | Remand with evidentiary hearing required; or, alternative efficiency suggestions noted by concurring judge. |
| Should the agency have additional steps on remand to avoid further delay given overpayment issues? | Timely resolution is important due to back benefits and overpayments. | Operational efficiency concerns justify alternative handling. | Remand for evidentiary hearing preserves due process; potential merits review on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Idaho Dep't of Labor, 218 P.3d 1133 (Idaho 2009) (metered postmark cannot substitute for a postmark to prove mailing date)
- Arza v. Fla. Elections Comm'n, 907 So.2d 604 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (metered postmark does not constitute satisfactory proof of mailing)
- Lin v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 735 A.2d 697 (Pa. 1999) (date on private meter lacks reliability as mailing date)
- Texas Beef Cattle Co. v. Green, 862 S.W.2d 812 (Tex.App.1993) (metered stamp has little probative force as mailing date)
- Albaugh v. State Bank of La Vernia, 586 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Civ.App.1979) (metered stamp unreliable for mailing date)
- Espinosa v. Cableoptics, Inc., 807 So.2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (considerations on timely notice and timing disputes in unemployment context)
- Applegate v. Nat'l Health Care Affiliates, 667 So.2d 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (remand to determine timeliness when notice issues exist)
- Pollett v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 928 So.2d 469 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (due process fairness concerns can justify relief from timing rules)
- Thurman v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 881 So.2d 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (due process fairness concerns in delay/refusal to file timely)