Attorneys Guild v. State, 653 So.2d 487, 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (“When the constitutionality of a statute is a mixed question of law and fact, involving the existence of valid reasons for the legislation, it is preferable to have a record developed in a lower court before a finder of fact.”). And both the Florida Supreme Court and this court have rejected constitutional arguments for lack of evidence. See Cox v. Fla. Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 656 So.2d 902 (Fla.1995) (remanding case on ground eviden-tiary record was insufficient to support Second District’s holding that equal protection rights were not violated by statute precluding petitioner from adopting child because petitioner was gay); Khoury v. Carvel Homes S., Inc., 403 So.2d 1043, 1046 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (<HOLDING>). For these reasons, we conclude the JCC
holding that because maryland law expressly creates right to file workers compensation claim action exists for wrongful discharge for termination based solely on the filing of a workers compensation claim holding workers compensation claimant failed to prove statute requiring jccs approval for payment of attorneys fees was inadequate to achieve legitimate state interest in protecting workers holding that employee must prove that the sole reason for their discharge was their filing of a workers compensation claim to prevail on a claim of wrongful discharge under marylands workers compensation act holding that in absence of statute prohibiting recovery claimant may receive workers compensation and unemployment benefits simultaneously holding that the trial courts authority to initiate workers compensation benefits before the final adjudication was not divested by the legislature and was consistent with the stated purpose of the workers compensation act