Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Brock v. Industrial Commission, 486 P.2d 207.

40 citing documents.

Timothy Matthews v. ica/city of tucson/tristar Ariz. 2022
Timothy Matthews v. ica/city of tucson/tristar Ariz. 2022
Comm’n, the workers’ compensation claimant was a truck driver who previously suffered from depression, which was aggravated by an incident in which he ran over and killed a woman, did not realize he had done so until informed by the police, and was subsequently suspended and investigated.
John R France v. ica/gila county/acip Ariz. 2021
John R France v. ica/gila county/acip Ariz. 2021
Comm’n of Ariz., –97 (1971) (holding that claimant, who aggravated a pre- existing mental condition when he “ran over and killed a woman while operating a water-truck in the course of his employment,” suffered a compensable injury because the subject incident was an “unexpected injury-causing event”); see also 4 Larson’s Workers’ C
Dugan v. American Express Travel Related Services Co. 912 P.2d 1322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Dugan v. American Express Travel Related Services Co. 912 P.2d 1322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Brock v. Industrial Comm’n, , see also State Comp.
Irvin Investors, Inc. v. Superior Court 800 P.2d 979 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Irvin Investors, Inc. v. Superior Court 800 P.2d 979 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Brock v. Industrial Comm’n
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Doe 797 P.2d 718 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Doe 797 P.2d 718 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Murphy v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 774 P.2d 221 Ariz. 1989
Murphy v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 774 P.2d 221 Ariz. 1989
We have defined “accident” to mean an “unexpected injury-causing event____” Brock v. Industrial Comm’n
Ringling Bros. & Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. v. Superior Court 680 P.2d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Ringling Bros. & Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. v. Superior Court 680 P.2d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
(compensation denied on the basis of insufficient causal relationship between the injury and the accident).
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
In this category, , which held that a workman who is told that he ran over a pedestrian and suffered emotional distress as a result of this revelation, suffered a compensable injury.
Sloss v. Industrial Commission 588 P.2d 303 Ariz. 1978
Sloss v. Industrial Commission 588 P.2d 303 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 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
Verdugo v. Industrial Commission 561 P.2d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Verdugo v. Industrial Commission 561 P.2d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Ramonett v. Industrial Commission 558 P.2d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Ramonett v. Industrial Commission 558 P.2d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Tatman v. Provincial Homes, supra, (fall from 15 foot scaffold, precipitat *730 ing preexisting mental instability); , (hysteria following back injury); , (preexisting depressive anxiety and manic-depression aggravated by incident in which truck driver caused death of pedestrian).
Muse v. Industrial Commission 554 P.2d 908 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Muse v. Industrial Commission 554 P.2d 908 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
In denying compensation, , in which compensation had been awarded to a person whose preexisting depressive anxiety had-been aggravated as a result of his suspension from work following an incident in which the truck he had been driving ran over and killed a woman.
State Compensation Fund v. Industrial Commission 543 P.2d 154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
State Compensation Fund v. Industrial Commission 543 P.2d 154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
State Compensation Fund v. Industrial Commission 535 P.2d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
State Compensation Fund v. Industrial Commission 535 P.2d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
this Court considered the *35 very question presented here, in a factual framework nearly identical to the one here.
Martinez v. Industrial Commission 498 P.2d 153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Martinez v. Industrial Commission 498 P.2d 153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
31 , , There is no medical evidence which is contrary to Dr. Duisberg’s opinion.
Kay v. Industrial Commission 496 P.2d 875 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Kay v. Industrial Commission 496 P.2d 875 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Shope v. Industrial Commission 495 P.2d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Shope v. Industrial Commission 495 P.2d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Raftery v. Industrial Commission 486 P.2d 205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Raftery v. Industrial Commission 486 P.2d 205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
In rejecting petitioner’s claim, the Commission raised no objections concerning the purely emotional basis of petitioner’s injury, , but rejected petitioner’s claim solely on the grounds that he did not prove that he had sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.