Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Best v. Industrial Commission, 482 P.2d 470.

36 citing documents.

Reves v. Industrial Commission 767 P.2d 713 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Reves v. Industrial Commission 767 P.2d 713 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Black v. Industrial Commission 716 P.2d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Black v. Industrial Commission 716 P.2d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Garcia v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 685 P.2d 1336 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Garcia v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 685 P.2d 1336 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
the very least ambiguous since it was addressed to the deceased, the Notice of Claim Status is not saved since such notice, to be effective, had to be clear enough to apprise the petitioner that her claim had been denied and that she was required “to request a hearing within [the required time period] or be forever barred from urging [her] rights [thereunder] ____”
Payne v. Industrial Commission 664 P.2d 655 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Payne v. Industrial Commission 664 P.2d 655 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
136 , , and notices contradicted by the supporting medical report
Minghelli v. INDUS. COMMISSION OF ARIZONA 630 P.2d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Minghelli v. INDUS. COMMISSION OF ARIZONA 630 P.2d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Sun Control Tile Co. v. Industrial Commission 571 P.2d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Sun Control Tile Co. v. Industrial Commission 571 P.2d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Nelson v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 564 P.2d 1260 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Nelson v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 564 P.2d 1260 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
136 , , in which inconsistencies on the face of a Notice of Claim Status were held to create such ambiguity that the Notice would not be accorded finality after the 60 day period had lapsed.
McMurray v. Industrial Commission 545 P.2d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
McMurray v. Industrial Commission 545 P.2d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
ary 1, 1974; that the logical interpretation of all said NOTICES OF CLAIM STATUS is that they are of no legal force and effect; that said NOTICES OF CLAIM STATUS are in fact ambiguous and had the applicant' failed to timely request a hearing in protest thereof the said NOTICES OF CLAIM STATUS would not have been ‘legal notice’ , however, the applicant did in fact file a timely REQUEST FOR HEARING and it is the REQUEST FOR HEARING which vests the Industrial Commission with jurisdiction to hear al
Bernard v. Industrial Commission 536 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Bernard v. Industrial Commission 536 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Judd v. Industrial Commission 532 P.2d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Judd v. Industrial Commission 532 P.2d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Best v. Industrial Commission 517 P.2d 1104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Best v. Industrial Commission 517 P.2d 1104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
set aside the award of the Commission holding that the request for hearing was timely.
Garcia v. Industrial Commission 512 P.2d 24 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Garcia v. Industrial Commission 512 P.2d 24 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Sanchez v. Industrial Commission 510 P.2d 773 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Sanchez v. Industrial Commission 510 P.2d 773 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Parsons v. Industrial Commission, 14 Ariz.App.
Taylor v. Industrial Commission 509 P.2d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Taylor v. Industrial Commission 509 P.2d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Saline v. Industrial Commission 492 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Saline v. Industrial Commission 492 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Employers Mut. L. Ins. Co. of Wis. v. Indus. Com'n 490 P.2d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Employers Mutual Liability Insurance v. Industrial Commission 490 P.2d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Employers Mut. L. Ins. Co. of Wis. v. Indus. Com'n 490 P.2d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
(the mandate has issued), we had occasion to consider an ambiguous notice of claim status.
Employers Mutual Liability Insurance v. Industrial Commission 490 P.2d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
(the mandate has issued), we had occasion to consider an ambiguous notice of claim status.
Pinkerton v. Industrial Commission 488 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Pinkerton v. Industrial Commission 488 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
We therefore hold that the failure of the petitioner to request a hearing within sixty days from the date of the notice of claim status terminating his benefits, deprived the Commission of jurisdiction to determine whether such a termination was wrongfully made.” Although we did not use the term res judicata in Parsons, a , wherein we said: “We are aware that the doctrine of res judicata applies to awards of the Industrial Commission (citations omitted), and, in view of the provisions of A.R.S.