Chastain v. Scandinavian Health Spas

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Chastain v. Scandinavian Health Spas

659 So. 2d 1381, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 9547, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2141

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 11, 1995

DocketNo. 94-3038

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 659 So. 2d 1381 (Chastain v. Scandinavian Health Spas) 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

Chastain v. Scandinavian Health Spas, 659 So. 2d 1381, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 9547, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2141 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The claimant appeals a workers’ compensation order effecting modification pursuant to section 440.28, Florida Statutes, based on a change in condition. The claimant argues that the requisite change must be shown by the “greater weight” of the evidence in accordance with Starkman v. Bechtel Power Corp., 588 So.2d 304 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). However, the proper inquiry on appeal is merely whether the challenged finding is supported by competent substantial evidence. Swanigan v. Dobbs House, 442 So.2d 1026 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); see also, e.g., Soloff v. U-Totem, Inc. of Broward, 257 So.2d 31 (Fla.1971); Kurtz Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Lyons, 465 So.2d 635 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Because there is such evidence in the present case, the appealed order is affirmed.

ALLEN and DAVIS, JJ., and SHIVERS, Senior Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The claimant appeals a workers’ compensation order effecting modification pursuant to section 440.28, Florida Statutes, based on a change in condition. The claimant argues that the requisite change must be shown by the “greater weight” of the evidence in accordance with Starkman v. Bechtel Power Corp., 588 So.2d 304 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). However, the proper inquiry on appeal is merely whether the challenged finding is supported by competent substantial evidence. Swanigan v. Dobbs House, 442 So.2d 1026 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); see also, e.g., Soloff v. U-Totem, Inc. of Broward, 257 So.2d 31 (Fla.1971); Kurtz Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Lyons, 465 So.2d 635 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Because there is such evidence in the present case, the appealed order is affirmed.

ALLEN and DAVIS, JJ., and SHIVERS, Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

659 So. 2d 1381, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 9547, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chastain-v-scandinavian-health-spas-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack