Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Hornback v. Industrial Commission, 474 P.2d 807.

32 citing documents.

pinal/az Counties v. Goode Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
pinal/az Counties v. Goode Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Comm’n, P.2d 807 (1970).
Hendrickson v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 46 P.3d 1063 Ariz. 2002
Hendrickson v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 46 P.3d 1063 Ariz. 2002
We hold that, under the facts of this ease, , does not apply.
Stout v. State Compensation Fund 44 P.3d 178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Stout v. State Compensation Fund 44 P.3d 178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Comm’n, , Macaluso v. Indus.
Bohn v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 999 P.2d 180 Ariz. 2000
Bohn v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 999 P.2d 180 Ariz. 2000
Relying upon this court’s , , a majority of the court of appeals affirmed the forfeiture of the claim.
Bohn v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 984 P.2d 565 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Bohn v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 984 P.2d 565 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
See Hornback v. Industrial Comm’n, -20 , -11 (1970) (interpreting predecessor statute); see also Grinnell v. Industrial Comm’n, , (concluding that Homback continued to apply after the 1968 amendment to A.R.S.
Grijalva v. Arizona State Compensation Fund 912 P.2d 1303 Ariz. 1996
Grijalva v. Arizona State Compensation Fund 912 P.2d 1303 Ariz. 1996
Homback v. Industrial Comm’n
MacAluso v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 891 P.2d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
MacAluso v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 891 P.2d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
our supreme court interpreted the phrase “at an amount less than the ...
State Compensation Fund v. Ireland 851 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State Compensation Fund v. Ireland 851 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
the supreme court considered the underlying policy of A.R.S.
State Compensation Fund v. Nelson 737 P.2d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State Compensation Fund v. Nelson 737 P.2d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Lavello v. Wilson 722 P.2d 962 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Lavello v. Wilson 722 P.2d 962 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
-997 (1952); , -811 (1970).
Mannel v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 688 P.2d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Mannel v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 688 P.2d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
the Arizona Supreme Court recognized that absent carrier approval of a third party settlement, a worker was not entitled to reopen his claim and thereby receive additional benefits, even though the original settlement was for $10,000, whereas the benefits awarded were only accident benefits and
Grinnell v. Industrial Commission 677 P.2d 287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Grinnell v. Industrial Commission 677 P.2d 287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
2) Is Hornback still applicable in light of statutory changes in A.R.S.
Talley v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 670 P.2d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Talley v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 670 P.2d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
As support for his findings
Triste v. Industrial Commission 544 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Triste v. Industrial Commission 544 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Hendry v. Industrial Commission 532 P.2d 882 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Hendry v. Industrial Commission 532 P.2d 882 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
a case governed by the statutes prior to the 1968 amendment, our Supreme Court held that where an employee had accepted compensation [minimal as it was], later sued the third party tort-feasor, and thereafter effected a settlement without the approval of the party responsible for the payment of
Ruth v. Industrial Commission 483 P.2d 65 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Ruth v. Industrial Commission 483 P.2d 65 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
as follows: “By limiting the workmen’s compensation to the deficiency, the statute ensures that there will be no double recovery for injuries.” 106 Ariz. at 219 , 474 P.2d at 810 .