Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite O'Donnell v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona, 609 P.2d 1058.

42 citing documents.

Sun Valley Masonry, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 167 P.3d 719 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Sun Valley Masonry, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 167 P.3d 719 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
-62 , -62 (App.1979), we recognized that a claimant’s unreasonable, intentional conduct may constitute a superseding cause of a new condition and preclude compensation.
Kaibab Industries v. Industrial Commission 2 P.3d 691 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Kaibab Industries v. Industrial Commission 2 P.3d 691 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
See Dr. Pepper Co., 154 Ariz. at 566-67 , 744 P.2d at 478-79 ; O’
Rural Metro Corp. v. Industrial Commission 3 P.3d 1053 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Rural Metro Corp. v. Industrial Commission 3 P.3d 1053 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
However, in DKI, and in the earlier case of O’ , Division One appeared willing to extend the Larson rule to include those situations in which the employee’s subsequent injury is industrially related.
AJ Goulder Elec. v. INDUS. COM'N 928 P.2d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
A.J. Goulder Electric v. Industrial Commission 928 P.2d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
AJ Goulder Elec. v. INDUS. COM'N 928 P.2d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
this court expressly conditioned the successive injury doctrine upon a claimant's election.
A.J. Goulder Electric v. Industrial Commission 928 P.2d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
In O’Donnell v. Industrial Comm’n, , this court expressly conditioned the successive injury doctrine upon a claimant’s election.
Karber/Interstate Air v. Industrial Commission 885 P.2d 99 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Karber/Interstate Air v. Industrial Commission 885 P.2d 99 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
ry to predisposed wrist); Klosterman v. Industrial Comm’n, , (later injury to predisposed knee); Mercante v. Industrial Comm’n, , (later medical complication of industrial back injury); Dutton v. Industrial Comm’n, , (later injury to predisposed back); O’Donnell v. Industrial Comm’n, , (industrial knee injury caused later back injury); American Smelting and Ref.
Beasley v. Industrial Commission 858 P.2d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Beasley v. Industrial Commission 858 P.2d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
“[W]hen compensability is to be extended to subsequent injuries or aggravations related in some manner to the primary injury, then case law requires that such subsequent injuries or aggravations be the ‘direct and natural result’ of the primary injury____” O’Donnell v. Industrial Comm’n, , (citing American Smelting & Refining Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 25 Ariz.App.
Lou Grubb Chevrolet, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 846 P.2d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Lou Grubb Chevrolet, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 846 P.2d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
ether an aggravation of the original injury or a new and distinct injury, is compensable if it is the direct and natural result of a compensable primary injury.” 1 A. Larson, The Law of Workmen’s Compensation, § 13.11 at 3-503 (1990) (emphasis added), cited with approval in Mercante, 153 Ariz. at 264 , 735 P.2d at 1387 ; Dutton, 140 Ariz. at 451 , 682 P.2d at 456 ; O’Donnell v. Industrial Comm’n
Espinosa v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 824 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Espinosa v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 824 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
See O’Donnell v. Industrial Comm’n
Post v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 770 P.2d 308 Ariz. 1989
Post v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 770 P.2d 308 Ariz. 1989
Dr. Pepper Co. v. Industrial Commission 744 P.2d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Dr. Pepper Co. v. Industrial Commission 744 P.2d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
In Pearce, we examined the successive injury doctrine in light of Professional Furniture Service, O’
Klosterman v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 747 P.2d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Klosterman v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 747 P.2d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
O’ , accord 1 A. Larson, Workmens’ Compensation Law § 13.11(b) (1985).
Mercante v. Industrial Com'n of Ariz. 735 P.2d 1384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Mercante v. Industrial Com'n of Ariz. 735 P.2d 1384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
O’ , , American Smelting & Refining Co. v. Industrial Commission, 25 Ariz.App.
Industrial Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Commission 731 P.2d 90 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Industrial Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Commission 731 P.2d 90 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
EBI’s response denied this
Vishinskas v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 711 P.2d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Vishinskas v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 711 P.2d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Pearce Development v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZONA 712 P.2d 429 Ariz. 1985
Pearce Development v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZONA 712 P.2d 429 Ariz. 1985
We believe that the court of appeals’ discussion of Arizona’s , , and O’ , is well-reasoned and thorough.
Pearce Development v. Industrial Commission 712 P.2d 445 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Pearce Development v. Industrial Commission 712 P.2d 445 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Then, , , and O’ , to conclude that: the loose body attributable to the 1981 injury and eventually causing the lost time and medical care and surgery thereafter requires the reopening of applicant’s 1981 claim file for benefits as provided by law.
Dutton v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 682 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Dutton v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 682 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
East v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 670 P.2d 420 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
East v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 670 P.2d 420 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
In O’ , we had occasion to discuss the relationship of the injured worker’s activity in breaking the chain of causal relationship where the resultant problems were the direct and natural result of the initial industrial injury, but would not have occurred except for the engaged in activity.
Arrowhead Press, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 653 P.2d 371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Arrowhead Press, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 653 P.2d 371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
in which we said: *24 “We therefore hold, in determining the causal relationship of a subsequent injury or aggravation to a primary injury where the claimant’s activity is a factor in bringing about the subsequent injury or aggravation, such activity shall not be considered to break the cha
Pacific Employers Insurance v. Industrial Commission 652 P.2d 147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Pacific Employers Insurance v. Industrial Commission 652 P.2d 147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
As authority for that proposition, petitioners rely on O’ , , and 1 A. Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law § 13.21.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by