Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Adams v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA, 710 P.2d 1073.

36 citing documents.

Simms v. Simms 567 P.3d 92 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Simms v. Simms 567 P.3d 92 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Wales v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Wales v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Luevano v. rangel/special Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Luevano v. rangel/special Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
the Arizona Supreme Court set aside the award where the ALJ had not had the opportunity to observe a witness whom the ALJ in the award deemed not credible.
Minch v. Azbn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Minch v. Azbn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Trey v. airways/hampshire Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Trey v. airways/hampshire Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Comm’n, regarding credibility factors the ALJ is in a position to consider that a reviewing court cannot see, as a literal statement of what the ALJ considered in finding Trey not credible.2 We construe Trey’s argument to be that since those factors include conditions that he claims might be related to a disabili
Shudak v. Azcc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Shudak v. Azcc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
pinal/az Counties v. Goode Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
pinal/az Counties v. Goode Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Collins v. Azdwm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Collins v. Azdwm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hon. harris/mitchell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hon. harris/mitchell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Comm’n, ); ¶ 12, (“Our reason for deference is clear.
Ritland v. Arizona State Board of Medical Examiners 140 P.3d 970 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Ritland v. Arizona State Board of Medical Examiners 140 P.3d 970 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Arizona Commercial Diving Services, Inc. v. Applied Diving Services, Inc. 129 P.3d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Arizona Commercial Diving Services, Inc. v. Applied Diving Services, Inc. 129 P.3d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Comm’n, , (administrative law judge’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses is generally binding upon the reviewing court.)
Douglas Auto & Equipment v. Industrial Commission 21 P.3d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Douglas Auto & Equipment v. Industrial Commission 21 P.3d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Adams v. Industrial Comm’n
Bergmann Precision, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 15 P.3d 276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Bergmann Precision, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 15 P.3d 276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Comm’n, -22 , -77 (App. 1985) (discussing deference to credibility finding), but we independently determine whether the facts as found support the ALJ’s legal conclusion that the claim is compensable.
Elia v. Arizona State Board of Dental Examiners 812 P.2d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Elia v. Arizona State Board of Dental Examiners 812 P.2d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Adams v. Industrial Comm’n of Arizona
Ohlmaier v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 776 P.2d 791 Ariz. 1989
Ohlmaier v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 776 P.2d 791 Ariz. 1989
Comm’n, , by commenting: In contrast to Adams , the issue here does not involve the credibility of a testifying claimant and whether an injury took place.
Ohlmaier v. Industrial Commission 762 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Ohlmaier v. Industrial Commission 762 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Claimant argues that this court’s , requires personal observation of witnesses by the AU in order for a reviewing court justly to defer to the credibility conclusions of the AU.
Vandever v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 714 P.2d 866 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Vandever v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 714 P.2d 866 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Adams v. Industrial Comm’n, Koval v. Industrial Comm’n, 23 Ariz.App.
W.A. Krueger Co. v. Industrial Commission 722 P.2d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
W.A. Krueger Co. v. Industrial Commission 722 P.2d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
we thoroughly discussed a similar issue, and held that where an administrative law judge has entered an initial decision and award based upon a record involving substantial credibility issues, the initial award may not be reversed upon review by a substituted administrative law judge w