Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Germany v. Industrial Commission, 514 P.2d 747.

45 citing documents.

Chenoweth v. R. behmer/copperpoint Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Chenoweth v. R. behmer/copperpoint Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Milliron v. fedex/sedgwick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Milliron v. fedex/sedgwick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Nieves v. Agrium us/ace Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Nieves v. Agrium us/ace Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Calder v. interstate/zurich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Calder v. interstate/zurich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Avila v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 193 P.3d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Avila v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 193 P.3d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Kelly Services v. Industrial Commission 106 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Kelly Services v. Industrial Commission 106 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Proudfoot v. Industrial Commission 971 P.2d 186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Proudfoot v. Industrial Commission 971 P.2d 186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
See Germany v. Industrial Comm’n
Paramo v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 918 P.2d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Paramo v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 918 P.2d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Roberts v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 781 P.2d 586 Ariz. 1989
Roberts v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 781 P.2d 586 Ariz. 1989
To meet this burden, the carrier must prove that “there is employment reasonably available which the claimant could reasonably be expected to perform, considering his physical capabilities, education and training____” Germany v. Industrial Comm’n
Arden-Mayfair v. Industrial Commission 764 P.2d 341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Arden-Mayfair v. Industrial Commission 764 P.2d 341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Thus, earning capacity is shown by competent evidence that there is “employment reasonably available which the claimant could reasonably be expected to perform, considering his physical capabilities, education and training....”
Tucson Steel Division v. Industrial Commission 744 P.2d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Tucson Steel Division v. Industrial Commission 744 P.2d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
The Fund relies on Le Duc and Germany v. Industrial Comm’n
MacIas v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 677 P.2d 1290 Ariz. 1984
MacIas v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 677 P.2d 1290 Ariz. 1984
Roach, supra 137 Ariz. at 512 , 672 P.2d at 177 ; *184
Roach v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 672 P.2d 175 Ariz. 1983
Roach v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 672 P.2d 175 Ariz. 1983
Zimmerman v. Industrial Commission 672 P.2d 922 Ariz. 1983
Zimmerman v. Industrial Commission 672 P.2d 922 Ariz. 1983
” , (emphasis supplied); Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company, supra.
Wells v. Industrial Commission 632 P.2d 558 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Wells v. Industrial Commission 632 P.2d 558 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
: The contention that the carrier must present evidence that there is open and waiting a job for this particular workman, taking into consideration not only his industrially-related physical condition, education, occupational history, the type of work he is able to perform and such related factors
Wiedmaier v. Industrial Commission 589 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1978
Wiedmaier v. Industrial Commission 589 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1978
Le Duc v. Industrial Commission 567 P.2d 1224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Le Duc v. Industrial Commission 567 P.2d 1224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Industrial Commission 560 P.2d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Industrial Commission 560 P.2d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Gould v. Industrial Commission 552 P.2d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Gould v. Industrial Commission 552 P.2d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co. of Wisconsin v. Industrial Commission 541 P.2d 580 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co. of Wisconsin v. Industrial Commission 541 P.2d 580 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Dean v. Industrial Commission 537 P.2d 599 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Dean v. Industrial Commission 537 P.2d 599 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
The contention that the carrier has such a
Harbor Insurance Company v. Industrial Commission 537 P.2d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Harbor Insurance Company v. Industrial Commission 537 P.2d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
§ 23-1047A & B, as amended 1968, , , subject of course, to formal hearing rights when requested, pursuant to A.R.S.
Dye v. Industrial Commission 530 P.2d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by