Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Kleinsmith v. Industrial Commission, 546 P.2d 346.

32 citing documents.

United Asphalt v. Industrial Commission 685 P.2d 1361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
United Asphalt v. Industrial Commission 685 P.2d 1361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Payne v. Industrial Commission 664 P.2d 655 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Payne v. Industrial Commission 664 P.2d 655 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
McKaskle v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 659 P.2d 1313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
McKaskle v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 659 P.2d 1313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
approved and adopted, , and its progeny dealing with the power of the Commission to waive an untimely filing.
Cohen v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 648 P.2d 139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Cohen v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 648 P.2d 139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
§ 23-1061(A), , approved and adopted
Town of El Mirage v. Industrial Commission 621 P.2d 286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Town of El Mirage v. Industrial Commission 621 P.2d 286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
*381 Petitioners also argue that the determination of the administrative law judge must be set aside because the administrative law judge may not resolve the merits of the claim until the preliminary jurisdictional questions have been resolved, , approved and adopted in
Citizen's Savings & Loan v. Industrial Commission 586 P.2d 985 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Citizen's Savings & Loan v. Industrial Commission 586 P.2d 985 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Kleinsmith v. Industrial Comm’n, , , adopted
Phoenix Cotton Pickery v. Industrial Commission 584 P.2d 601 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Phoenix Cotton Pickery v. Industrial Commission 584 P.2d 601 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Nor is there a claim for relief from the effects of a , and Kleinsmith v. Industrial Comm’n, , , adopted
Andrew v. Industrial Commission 576 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Andrew v. Industrial Commission 576 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
See Chavez v. Industrial Commission, supra
Kucko v. Industrial Commission 570 P.2d 217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Kucko v. Industrial Commission 570 P.2d 217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Blickenstaff v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 569 P.2d 277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Blickenstaff v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 569 P.2d 277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
approved and adopted as the opinion of the Arizona Supreme Court, , ” Id.
Nelson v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 564 P.2d 1260 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Nelson v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 564 P.2d 1260 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
St. Luke's Hosp., cna/insurance v. Indus. Com'n 559 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
St. Luke's Hosp., cna/insurance v. Indus. Com'n 559 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
“A. I believed that at the time everything that medically could be done for my back had been done and that there was nothing further to do for it.” If the hearing officer reaches the issue of untimeliness in this matter, , , affirmed
Stemkowski v. Industrial Commission 556 P.2d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Stemkowski v. Industrial Commission 556 P.2d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
approved and adopted as the opinion of the Arizona Supreme Court
Arizona Public Service Co. v. Industrial Commission 555 P.2d 126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Arizona Public Service Co. v. Industrial Commission 555 P.2d 126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Here, the hearing officer should have initially conducted a hearing to determine the reasons for the late filing, P.2d 346 (1976), majority opinion approved and adopted as the opinion of the Arizona Supreme Court, , he should have then proceeded to a hearing on the merits of the request for a change of doctors.
Holmes Tuttle Broadway Ford v. Industrial Commission 551 P.2d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Holmes Tuttle Broadway Ford v. Industrial Commission 551 P.2d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
majority opinion approved and adopted as the opinion of the Arizona Supreme Court
Kleinsmith v. Industrial Commission 549 P.2d 161 Ariz. 1976
Kleinsmith v. Industrial Commission 549 P.2d 161 Ariz. 1976
The majority opinion of the Court of Appeals as reported in , is approved and adopted as the opinion of this court.