Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Thiel v. Industrial Commission, 404 P.2d 711.

50 citing documents.

Nowlin v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 806 P.2d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Nowlin v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 806 P.2d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
379 , Thiel v. Industrial Comm’n
Wills v. Pima County Public Safety Personnel Retirement Board 743 P.2d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Wills v. Pima County Public Safety Personnel Retirement Board 743 P.2d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Archer v. Industrial Commission 619 P.2d 27 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Archer v. Industrial Commission 619 P.2d 27 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
(holding that a heart attack resulting from “extreme pressure” caused by factors in the employment was compensable.)
Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Industrial Commission 579 P.2d 555 Ariz. 1978
Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Industrial Commission 579 P.2d 555 Ariz. 1978
Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Industrial Commission 579 P.2d 566 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Industrial Commission 579 P.2d 566 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Doolin v. Industrial Commission 541 P.2d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Doolin v. Industrial Commission 541 P.2d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Montano v. Industrial Commission 500 P.2d 318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Montano v. Industrial Commission 500 P.2d 318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
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
Scoggins v. Industrial Commission 482 P.2d 482 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Scoggins v. Industrial Commission 482 P.2d 482 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
we stated: “It is not the duty of the respondent Industrial Commission to find that the employment conditions of the deceased were THE cause of the two ‘heart attacks’, but merely that the conditions of employment were A cause.
Enyart v. Industrial Commission 458 P.2d 514 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Enyart v. Industrial Commission 458 P.2d 514 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Brewer v. Industrial Commission 451 P.2d 897 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Brewer v. Industrial Commission 451 P.2d 897 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
with a , and Roberts v. Industrial Commission, 1 Ariz.App.
Rutledge v. Industrial Commission 451 P.2d 894 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Rutledge v. Industrial Commission 451 P.2d 894 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
If the stresses and strains were extraordinarily unusual, , , decided this day, there is usually testimony to indicate medical as well as legal causation between the employment and the myocardial infarction.” Roberts v. Industrial Commission, 1 Ariz.App.
Zaragoza v. Industrial Commission 445 P.2d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Zaragoza v. Industrial Commission 445 P.2d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
This Court set forth the criterion necessary to establish a , as follows: “ ‘In order to establish a compensable claim petitioner must sustain the burden of proving a recognizable causal connection between the employment and the accidental injury * * *.
Rose v. Industrial Commission 444 P.2d 739 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Rose v. Industrial Commission 444 P.2d 739 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Reynolds Metals Co. v. Industrial Commission 439 P.2d 542 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Neece v. Industrial Commission 439 P.2d 539 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Neece v. Industrial Commission 439 P.2d 539 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
and Kennecott Copper Corporation v. Industrial Commission, 4 Ariz.App.
Reynolds Metals Co. v. Industrial Commission 439 P.2d 542 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
and this is true in heart cases: “In order to establish a compensable claim petitioner must sustain the burden of proving a recognizable casual connection between the employment and the accidental injury, or more specifically in a case such as this, he must sustain the burden of proving that the exertion of his job precipitated the heart attack.”
Kinsman v. Industrial Commission 435 P.2d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Kinsman v. Industrial Commission 435 P.2d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
at 384 , at 1040 (1958).”
Harrington v. Industrial Commission 433 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Harrington v. Industrial Commission 433 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
: “In order to establish a compensable claim petitioner must sustain the burden of proving a recognizable causal connection between the employment and the accidental injury, * * * (citation omitted).
Rabago v. Industrial Commission 429 P.2d 14 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Rabago v. Industrial Commission 429 P.2d 14 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
We discussed the necessity of proof of a causal relationship between a petitioner’s , where we said: “ ‘In order to establish a compensable claim petitioner must sustain the burden of proving a recognizable causal connection between the employment and the accidental injury, or more specifically in a case such as this, he must sustain the burden of proving that the exertion of his
Kennecott Copper Corp. v. Industrial Commission 420 P.2d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Kennecott Copper Corp. v. Industrial Commission 420 P.2d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Flannery v. Industrial Commission 412 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Flannery v. Industrial Commission 412 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Roberts v. Industrial Commission, 1 Ariz.App.
Collins v. Industrial Commission 412 P.2d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Collins v. Industrial Commission 412 P.2d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Moore v. Industrial Commission 406 P.2d 861 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Moore v. Industrial Commission 406 P.2d 861 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Smith v. Martin Marietta Corporation 406 P.2d 746 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Smith v. Martin Marietta Corporation 406 P.2d 746 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Belshe v. Industrial Commission, 98 Ariz: 297
Roberts v. Industrial Commission 404 P.2d 715 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Roberts v. Industrial Commission 404 P.2d 715 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Dr. Ben P. Frissell testified: “I can’t speak for the other two men involved but it would not be my opinion that the work involved was of such nature as to be a causal relationship.” , , decided this date.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by