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 claimants entitlement to benefits, by contending that the injuries resulting from the industrial accident were not the MCC [major contributing cause] of the claimants need for further treatment or surgery.”). Per Curiam.
B.L. Thomas, Bilbrey, and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.