DANIEL MURPHY
v.
POLK COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND COMMERCIAL RISK MANAGEMENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Section 440.20(4) of the Florida Statutes does not preclude the employer/carrier from challenging the claimant's entitlement to benefits by contending that the injuries from the industrial accident were not the major contributing cause of the claimant's need for further treatment or surgery.
[1] Under Florida Statutes section 440.20(4), an employer or workers' compensation carrier may challenge a claimant's entitlement to benefits by contending that the claimant'…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“section 440.20(4) does not preclude the E/C from challenging the claimant's entitlement to benefits, by contending that the injuries resulting from the industrial accident were not the MCC [major contributing cause] of the claimant's need for further treatment or surgery.”
Court's holding citing Checkers Rest. v. Wiethoff
Daniel Murphy was injured in an industrial accident on July 10, 2015. Murphy appealed a decision by the Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims re…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Entitlement To Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
June 5, 2024 PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See Checkers Rest. v. Wiethoff, 925 So. 2d 348, 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (en banc) (“[S]ection 440.20(4) does not preclude the E/C from challenging the claimant’s entitlement to benefits, by contending that the injuries resulting from the industrial accident were not the MCC [major contributing cause] of the claimant’s need for further treatment or surgery.”). B.L. THOMAS, BILBREY, and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Checkers Rest. & Specialty Risk Servs., Inc. v. Wiethoff, 925 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)