Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Lugar v. Industrial Commission, 449 P.2d 61.

26 citing documents.

Amey v. Industrial Commission 752 P.2d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Amey v. Industrial Commission 752 P.2d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Rejecting the argument that the appropriate remedy is a petition to reopen, we have consistently concluded that the trier-of-fact should consider “all pertinent data available as of the date of the hearing____” Lugar v. Industrial Comm’n, , 1 accord, e.g., Jessie’s Boat Shop & R.V.
Nelson v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 656 P.2d 1230 Ariz. 1982
Nelson v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 656 P.2d 1230 Ariz. 1982
Cook v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 651 P.2d 365 Ariz. 1982
Cook v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 651 P.2d 365 Ariz. 1982
When a hearing is held it should be inclusive of all pertinent data available as of the date of the hearing * * *.”
Fullen v. Industrial Commission 595 P.2d 657 Ariz. 1979
Fullen v. Industrial Commission 595 P.2d 657 Ariz. 1979
The intention of the Workmen’s Compensation Act was to provide benefits for workmen injured in the course and scope of their employment, and to do so by a relatively informal administrative procedure which would be less cumbersome and time consuming than formal court action.”
Evertsen v. Industrial Commission 573 P.2d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Evertsen v. Industrial Commission 573 P.2d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
This attitude that the Commission operates in the capacity of parens patriae, is reflected, for example, , : “The intention of the Workmen’s Compensation Act was to provide benefits for workmen injured in the course and scope of their employment, and to do so by a relatively informal administrative procedure which would be less cumbersome and time consuming than formal court action.
Brock v. Industrial Commission 486 P.2d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Brock v. Industrial Commission 486 P.2d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Torrez v. Industrial Commission 467 P.2d 245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Torrez v. Industrial Commission 467 P.2d 245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
State Comp. Fund v. GARCIA AND INDUSTRIAL COM'N 467 P.2d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
State Comp. Fund v. GARCIA AND INDUSTRIAL COM'N 467 P.2d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
: “The intention of the Legislature, and the long line of case law interpretation by the Court, has been that the interpretation of the Workmen’s Compensation Law is to be a liberal one.
Strong v. Industrial Commission 466 P.2d 50 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Strong v. Industrial Commission 466 P.2d 50 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Countryman v. Industrial Commission 457 P.2d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Countryman v. Industrial Commission 457 P.2d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Mrs. Countryman, the petitioner, argues that Dr. Hoffman’s recommendation was before the Industrial Commission at the time of the decision upon rehearing; , such evidence should have been considered even though it was obtained after the original findings and award, and the failure of the Industrial Commission to fully investigate the recommendation constituted an abuse of discretion by the Industrial Commission.
Talley v. Industrial Commission 451 P.2d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Talley v. Industrial Commission 451 P.2d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
88 , we stated, “we deplore the Commission’s indulgence in procedural niceties to the *313 •detriment of the petitioners.” , as follows: “ * * * the intention of the Legislature, and the long line of case law interpretation by the Court has been that the interpretation of the Workmen’s Compensation law is to be a liberal one.
Mokma v. Industrial Commission 449 P.2d 622 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Mokma v. Industrial Commission 449 P.2d 622 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
McKnight v. Industrial Commission 449 P.2d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
McKnight v. Industrial Commission 449 P.2d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
203 , , , decided December 30, 1968.