Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Pearce Development v. Industrial Commission, 712 P.2d 445.

32 citing documents.

Harvest madison/liberty v. Taft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Harvest madison/liberty v. Taft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Comm’n, opinion adopted in part, vacated in part, (successive injury doctrine adopted).
Southwest Gas Corp. v. Industrial Commission 25 P.3d 1164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Southwest Gas Corp. v. Industrial Commission 25 P.3d 1164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
v. Industrial Comm’n, , vacated in part on other grounds
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 Pearce Development v. Industrial Comm’n, -02 , -49 (1985), approved in pertinent part
Lay v. Industrial Commission 993 P.2d 1098 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Lay v. Industrial Commission 993 P.2d 1098 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
v. Industrial Comm’n, , approved in part
Martinez v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 962 P.2d 903 Ariz. 1998
Martinez v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 962 P.2d 903 Ariz. 1998
aff'd in part and vacated in part, , the court found the question to be whether the degeneration occurring at work “materially contributed to the disability or to the need for medical treatment.” Although Dr. Beauehene testified that claimant’s work accelerated
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
v. Industrial Comm'n, , approved in pertinent part
A.J. Goulder Electric v. Industrial Commission 928 P.2d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
v. Industrial Comm’n, , approved in pertinent part
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
v. Industrial Comm’n, , analysis of successive injury doctrine approved
Industrial Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Commission 784 P.2d 709 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Industrial Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Commission 784 P.2d 709 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
See, e.g., Pearce Development v. Industrial Comm’n, -03 , -50 (App.1985), approved in part
Johnson-Manley Lumber v. INDUS. COM'N. 764 P.2d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Johnson-Manley Lumber v. INDUS. COM'N. 764 P.2d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
“Indeed, the subsequent activity may be merely the proverbial last straw.” , adopted in part and vacated in part on other grounds
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 advancing this argument, , approved in part and vacated in part, , , 650 *
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
analysis of successive injury doctrine approved and adopted at
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
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
analysis of successive doctrine approved and adopted
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 granted the petitions of Western Fire Insurance Company and Industrial Indemnity for review of the decision and opinion of the court of appeals, , which set aside an award granting reopening of the applicant’s first claim and denying compensability of applicant’s second claim.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by