Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Viera

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, where the employer declined claimant’s request for a specific chiropractor “or [that failing] any other chiropractor chosen by the employer,” the employee was entitled to retroactive authorization of the chiropractor who provided necessary treatment
• holding claimant entitled to chiropractor requested when none authorized
• failure to offer alternative chiropractic care in response to claimant's request, and offer of orthopedic surgeons and neurologists instead, failed to comply with the requirements of subsection 440.13(2

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).