Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Reilly v. Industrial Commission, 398 P.2d 920.

44 citing documents.

american/xl v. Arias Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
american/xl v. Arias Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Mont Polanco v. Ica Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Mont Polanco v. Ica Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Ford v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 703 P.2d 453 Ariz. 1985
Ford v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 703 P.2d 453 Ariz. 1985
Such an election had been permitted, prior to 1973, in *514 cases such as Mead v. American Smelting & Refining Company
Phoenix Pest Control v. Industrial Commission 655 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Phoenix Pest Control v. Industrial Commission 655 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Fletcher v. Industrial Commission 587 P.2d 757 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Fletcher v. Industrial Commission 587 P.2d 757 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
See e. g., Reilly v. Industrial Comm’n, , A.R.S.
Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Industrial Commission 558 P.2d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Industrial Commission 558 P.2d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
does not point to any specific external or internal happening or event which would normally be considered as an “injury by accident”, but rather, in effect, takes the position that her continued work activity, after the progress of her disease made her work painful and uncomfortable
State Compensation Fund v. Joe 543 P.2d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
State Compensation Fund v. Joe 543 P.2d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
be considered accidental and compel payment of compensation under the Arizona Constitution, Article 18, § 8, 1 A.R.S.” , P.2d 600 (1961); , , Mead v. American Smelting And Refining Co., 1 Ariz.App.
Priedigkeit v. Industrial Commission 542 P.2d 1140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Priedigkeit v. Industrial Commission 542 P.2d 1140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
ings that petitioner had, prior to his employment with this employer, lengthy exposure to deleterious substances, including 13 years exposure to carbon tetrachloride, and that petitioner, therefore, had not sustained his burden of showing that his condition was definitely traceable to his employment by Components
State Compensation Fund v. Yazzie 541 P.2d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
State Compensation Fund v. Yazzie 541 P.2d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
See also, , , , Mead v. American Smelting and Refining Co., 1 Ariz.App.
Employers Mutual Liability Insurance v. Industrial Commission 539 P.2d 541 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Employers Mut. L. Ins. Co. of Wis. v. Indus. Com'n 539 P.2d 541 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Employers Mut. L. Ins. Co. of Wis. v. Indus. Com'n 539 P.2d 541 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Employers Mutual Liability Insurance v. Industrial Commission 539 P.2d 541 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Ayer v. Industrial Commission 531 P.2d 208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Ayer v. Industrial Commission 531 P.2d 208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Eventually the definition of accident was liberalized to the extent that an injury would be found within the meaning of the Act even though it developed slowly over a period of time; , , , and the resulting unex *166 pected physical or structural change in the workman could be classified as an injury resulting from accident.
O'CONNOR v. Industrial Commission 504 P.2d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
O'CONNOR v. Industrial Commission 504 P.2d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
[ , ] (repeated continuous exposure to lint, resulting in emphysema); , (pneumonia developed as the result of inhaling fumes from a cracked exhaust pipe) ; , (inhalation of
Lumberman's Mutual Casualty Co. v. Industrial Commission 497 P.2d 531 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Lumberman's Mutual Casualty Co. v. Industrial Commission 497 P.2d 531 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
: “ * * * we find that the law in Arizona is that when a condition has developed, not instantaneously, but gradually, over a period of time, resulting in a definite though unexpected injury or disease, which injury or disease is work-connected, then said injury or disease is the result of an ‘acci
Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Industrial Commission 480 P.2d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Industrial Commission 480 P.2d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
does not point to any specific external or internal happening or event which would normally be considered as an “injury by accident”, but rather, in effect, takes the position that her continued work activity, after the progress of her disease made her work painful and uncomfortable
Sill v. Industrial Commission 467 P.2d 81 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Sill v. Industrial Commission 467 P.2d 81 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
after pointing out that the Workmen’s Compensation Act is remedial and its terms should be liberally construed, we went on to say: “ * * * [a]n employee contacting a disease may recover compensation as for an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, (citation omitt
Inglis v. Industrial Commission 464 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Inglis v. Industrial Commission 464 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Nunez v. Arizona Milling Company 439 P.2d 834 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Nunez v. Arizona Milling Company 439 P.2d 834 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
But in view of the very broad interpretation given to the word “accident” as used in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, , , , Mead v. American Smelting & Refining Company, 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
Although we are of the opinion that activities over a period of time can equal an accident, , we are also mindful of our case of Roberts v. Industrial Commission, 1 Ariz.App.
Davis v. Industrial Commission 406 P.2d 866 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Davis v. Industrial Commission 406 P.2d 866 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
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
Mead v. American Smelting & Refining Company 399 P.2d 694 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Mead v. American Smelting & Refining Company 399 P.2d 694 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
t the law in Arizona is that when a condition has developed, not instantaneously, but gradually, over a period of time, resulting in a definite though unexpected injury or disease, which injury or disease is definitely work-connected, then said injury or disease is the result of an ‘accident’ within the terms of our Workmen’s Compensation Act, and is compensable.”