Maribona v. Southern Pan Services

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Maribona v. Southern Pan Services

825 So. 2d 434, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 9375, 2002 WL 1401701

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 1, 2002

DocketNo. 1D00-2254

StatusPublished

This text of 825 So. 2d 434 (Maribona v. Southern Pan Services) 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

Maribona v. Southern Pan Services, 825 So. 2d 434, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 9375, 2002 WL 1401701 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Claimant/employee appeals a final order dismissing his petition for workers’ compensation benefits, which was entered on the ground that the judge of compensation claims lacked jurisdiction to consider the claim, because a collective bargaining agreement entered into by the employee’s union and the employer had supplanted the provisions of chapter 440, as authorized by section 440.211, Florida Statutes (1995). We affirm all issues raised, noting that some have been addressed by this court’s decisions in Ulico Casualty Co. v. Fernandez, 825 So.2d 988 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), and Ariston v. Allied Building Crafts, 825 So.2d 435 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), while others are either without merit or the findings challenged are supported by competent, substantial evidence.

AFFIRMED.

ERVIN, BARFIELD and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Claimant/employee appeals a final order dismissing his petition for workers’ compensation benefits, which was entered on the ground that the judge of compensation claims lacked jurisdiction to consider the claim, because a collective bargaining agreement entered into by the employee’s union and the employer had supplanted the provisions of chapter 440, as authorized by section 440.211, Florida Statutes (1995). We affirm all issues raised, noting that some have been addressed by this court’s decisions in Ulico Casualty Co. v. Fernandez, 825 So.2d 988 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), and Ariston v. Allied Building Crafts, 825 So.2d 435 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), while others are either without merit or the findings challenged are supported by competent, substantial evidence.

AFFIRMED.

ERVIN, BARFIELD and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

825 So. 2d 434, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 9375, 2002 WL 1401701, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maribona-v-southern-pan-services-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack