Checkers Restaurant v. Wiethoff

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• distinguishing between compensability (defined as “the occurrence of an industrial accident resulting in injury”) and 20 Relevant to this case, section 440.19(2
• holding a claimant was not entitled to continuing medical benefits for an injury because, although the E/C did not deny compensability within the 120-day period, evidence showed that the major contributing cause of the claimant’s need for surgery was her preexisting condition
• invoking en banc process to clarify waiver provision of section 440.20(4), Florida Statutes, in light of several recent opinions that \blurred the distinction between compensability and entitlement to benefits\
• invoking en banc process to clarify waiver provision of section 440.20(4), Florida Statutes, in light of several recent opinions that “blurred the distinction between compensability and entitlement to benefits”
• noting the “[o]ther issues” beyond the injured worker’s entitlement to benefits that “remain subject to challenge, including the extent of the compensable injury and the causal relationship between the compensable injury and the condition for which the worker seeks benefits”
• en banc decision released without antecedent publication of panel decision

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).