Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Eldorado Insurance Co. v. Industrial Commission, 558 P.2d 32.

30 citing documents.

Holyan v. odyssey/cincinnati Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Holyan v. odyssey/cincinnati Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Pate v. smith's/sedgwick Cms Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Pate v. smith's/sedgwick Cms Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Comm’n, (“While most lay persons have opinions and theories of their own as to how the human body functions, our courts have decided that, in order to recover compensation, a standard of expert evidence on the subject is required .
Sanders v. bowie/american Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Sanders v. bowie/american Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Comm’n, Spears v. Indus.
Di Donato v. haggen/xl Insurance Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Di Donato v. haggen/xl Insurance Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Comm’n, (citations omitted).
Wells v. aps/pinnacle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Wells v. aps/pinnacle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Comm’n, (citations omitted); Makinson v. Indus.
Sambrano v. Kr Capital Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Sambrano v. Kr Capital Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
T.W.M. Custom Framing v. Industrial Commission 6 P.3d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
T.W.M. Custom Framing v. Industrial Commission 6 P.3d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, , ).
Spielman v. Industrial Commission 788 P.2d 1244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Spielman v. Industrial Commission 788 P.2d 1244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
In this context, claimant also asserts that his case is similar to Eldorado Insurance Co. v. Industrial Comm’n
Ziv v. Industrial Commission 773 P.2d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Ziv v. Industrial Commission 773 P.2d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Co. v. Industrial Comm’n
Phelps v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 747 P.2d 1200 Ariz. 1987
Phelps v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 747 P.2d 1200 Ariz. 1987
Special Fund of the Industrial Commission v. Catalina Trucking Co. 658 P.2d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Special Fund of the Industrial Commission v. Catalina Trucking Co. 658 P.2d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Western Bonded Products v. Industrial Commission 647 P.2d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Western Bonded Products v. Industrial Commission 647 P.2d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
It has long been the law of this jurisdiction that where the result of an accident is not clearly apparent to a layman, these two elements must be determined by expert medical testimony, , , Lamb v. Industrial Commission, supra; Yates v. Industrial Commission, supra; , , cert.
Asbestos Engineering & Supply Co. v. Industrial Commission 642 P.2d 903 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Asbestos Engineering & Supply Co. v. Industrial Commission 642 P.2d 903 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
: *562 The obvious reason for this rule is that lay persons are no better able to testify concerning the functioning of the human body than they are to treat its infirmities.
Reynolds Metals Co. v. Industrial Commission 582 P.2d 656 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Reynolds Metals Co. v. Industrial Commission 582 P.2d 656 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Yates v. Industrial Commission 568 P.2d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Yates v. Industrial Commission 568 P.2d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977