Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Parsons v. Bekins Freight, 493 P.2d 913.

114 citing documents.

Andrew v. Industrial Commission 576 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Andrew v. Industrial Commission 576 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Because the reason for the late filing here was a miscalculation of the 60-day period by counsel for petitioner, the hearing officer refus *276 , which he felt was limited in application to its facts.
Sandoval v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 571 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Sandoval v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 571 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
See e. g., , , Hopper v. Industrial Commission, 27 Ariz.App.
Blickenstaff v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 569 P.2d 277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Blickenstaff v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 569 P.2d 277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Blickenstaff’s , , , mandates an extension of this statutory period for an untimely filing excusable due to a meritorious position.
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
Petitioner’s , should be invoked to excuse his late filing.
St. Luke's Hosp., cna/insurance v. Indus. Com'n 559 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
St. Luke's Hosp., cna/insurance v. Indus. Com'n 559 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Stemkowski v. Industrial Commission 556 P.2d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Stemkowski v. Industrial Commission 556 P.2d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
den.], Chavez v. Industrial Commission, [ , 529 P,2d 1181 (1974)], , ” From a review of the entire record we cannot say that the hearing officer abused his discretion.
Holmes Tuttle Broadway Ford v. Industrial Commission 551 P.2d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Holmes Tuttle Broadway Ford v. Industrial Commission 551 P.2d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Smith v. Industrial Commission 551 P.2d 90 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Smith v. Industrial Commission 551 P.2d 90 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Judd v. Industrial Commission, 23 Ariz.App.
Kleinsmith v. Industrial Commission 546 P.2d 346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Kleinsmith v. Industrial Commission 546 P.2d 346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
§ 23-947, which provides that unless the request is filed within 60 days, “a hearing on any question relating to a claim shall not be granted.” , a hearing was held, confined solely to the issue of the jurisdiction of the Industrial Commission in view of the untimely filing.
Davis v. Industrial Commission 548 P.2d 849 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Davis v. Industrial Commission 548 P.2d 849 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Finally, , exception to the 60 day time limit for requesting a hearing.
Roseberry v. Industrial Commission 546 P.2d 802 Ariz. 1976
Roseberry v. Industrial Commission 546 P.2d 802 Ariz. 1976
That the petitioner misperceived his remedy and filed a Petition to Reopen, gives no solace to the respondents, P.2d 913 (1972), come into play.
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Industrial Commission 545 P.2d 443 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Industrial Commission 545 P.2d 443 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
” While there was some question regarding the policy of the Commission, as set forth in finding # 8 supra, to solicit claim forms from workmen when the Commission is made aware of an injury, either through the proper compliance with A.R.S.
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
In light of this Court’s decision in Best v. The Industrial Commission of Arizona, supra, the facts of this case, several recent cases of the Supreme Court regarding the relaxation of theretofore rigid jurisdictional time limits, , , , and in light of the remedial nature of the Workmen’s Compensation Law generally, Royall v. Industrial Commission of Arizona
Tharp v. Industrial Commission 535 P.2d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Tharp v. Industrial Commission 535 P.2d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
The hearing officer found that, , the Commission had no jurisdiction to conduct a hearing and that the Notice of Permanent Disability Benefits issued on 16 November 1972 was final and res judicata.
Gurovich v. Industrial Commission 534 P.2d 294 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Gurovich v. Industrial Commission 534 P.2d 294 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
The hearing officer did not have, , Priedigkeit v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 20 Ariz.App.
Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Industrial Commission 534 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Industrial Commission 534 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
A whole series of cases has recently emerged, attempting to preclude, as much as possible, the frustration of the main purpose of the statutes, the compensation *498 of injured workers, by the application of strict technical construction to these statutes: , , modified on rehearing, , ; , , 5
Massie v. Industrial Commission 533 P.2d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Massie v. Industrial Commission 533 P.2d 547 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
The court, in finding that the award of the hearing officer was not final stated: “More than two years prior to the Industrial Commission’s order of dismissal, in an unanimous decision of this Court authored by Chief Justice Hays
Chavez v. Industrial Commission 529 P.2d 1181 Ariz. 1974
Janis v. Industrial Commission 529 P.2d 1179 Ariz. 1974
Chavez v. Industrial Commission 529 P.2d 1181 Ariz. 1974
Janis v. Industrial Commission 529 P.2d 1179 Ariz. 1974
More than two years prior to the Industrial Commission’s order of dismissal, in a unanimous decision of this Court authored by Chief Justice Hays
Reddell v. Industrial Commission 528 P.2d 1254 Ariz. 1974
Reddell v. Industrial Commission 528 P.2d 1254 Ariz. 1974
Although we have excused late filings when justice demands, , Trull v. Industrial Commission, 21 Ariz.App.
Van Horn v. Industrial Commission 523 P.2d 783 Ariz. 1974
Van Horn v. Industrial Commission 523 P.2d 783 Ariz. 1974
In Re Trull 520 P.2d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
In Re Trull 520 P.2d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
our Supreme Court realized the unyielding harshness of our decisions in this area and stated: "We are aware that in the past we have held that a failure to timely file after notice of termination of an award deprives the Industrial Commission of jurisdiction to further consider the matter."
Janis v. Industrial Commission 521 P.2d 1005 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Janis v. Industrial Commission 521 P.2d 1005 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
wherein our Supreme Court en-grafted another exception onto the strict res judicata effect of untimely protests of awards.
Chavez v. Industrial Commission 520 P.2d 1178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Trull v. Industrial Commission 520 P.2d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974