Will Weaver go down as a one-off where the court willingly looked beyond things that may be "true in theory" in order to give a sympathetic claimant another shot at a pension, or will it fundamentally re-order workers' compensation practice, incentivizing scores of litigants to refile previously litigated claims, arguing they lacked sufficient economic motivation to pursue their appeal when it was "just" for time loss, or "just" for treatment (or so on), but now is for a much more valuable benefit like a pension?