Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Rutledge v. Industrial Commission, 492 P.2d 1168.

33 citing documents.

T.W.M. Custom Framing v. Industrial Commission 6 P.3d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
T.W.M. Custom Framing v. Industrial Commission 6 P.3d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
3 ¶ 15 In making its argument that Dr. Schulte’s “psychiatric autopsy” does not provide sufficient evidence to support the award, TWM relies on Rutledge v. Industrial Comm’n, , and Pais v. Industrial Comm’n
University of Arizona v. Industrial Commission 666 P.2d 465 Ariz. 1983
University of Arizona v. Industrial Commission 666 P.2d 465 Ariz. 1983
we held that where a physician had never examined the patient, he was not competent to testify whether the claimant suffered an injury arising out of and in the scope of his employment.
Northern Arizona University v. Industrial Commission 599 P.2d 860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Northern Arizona University v. Industrial Commission 599 P.2d 860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Although the legal foundation for this objection is not specified, it appears to be based upon the Arizona Supreme Court’s , wherein the Court stated: “It is one thing, in an Industrial Commission matter, for an expert to examine medical records, reports, and (where necessary for a determination of the matter) the petitioner, and then testify on matters peculiarly within his expertise.
Chavez v. Industrial Commission 575 P.2d 340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Scowden v. Industrial Commission 563 P.2d 336 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Scowden v. Industrial Commission 563 P.2d 336 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Cash v. Industrial Commission 556 P.2d 827 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Cash v. Industrial Commission 556 P.2d 827 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
ficer then noted that his refusal was also based upon the fact that Dr. Cohen’s testimony would be merely a “file review”, since the doctor had not examined the employee
Prigosin v. Industrial Commission 546 P.2d 823 Ariz. 1976
Prigosin v. Industrial Commission 546 P.2d 823 Ariz. 1976
State Compensation Fund v. Industrial Commission 546 P.2d 801 Ariz. 1976
State Compensation Fund v. Industrial Commission 546 P.2d 801 Ariz. 1976
Koval v. Industrial Commission 532 P.2d 549 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Koval v. Industrial Commission 532 P.2d 549 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
406 , , , we hold the findings and award are supported by substantial evidence.
Glover v. Industrial Commission 531 P.2d 563 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Glover v. Industrial Commission 531 P.2d 563 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
and Garza v. Industrial Commission, 17 Ariz.App.
Hazelton v. Industrial Commission 530 P.2d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Hazelton v. Industrial Commission 530 P.2d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
We also believe the Court of Appeals was correct in holding that the finding that there was an industrial accident was not res judicata when the matter was heard again as a trial de novo.”
Goldstein v. Industrial Commission 526 P.2d 1274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Goldstein v. Industrial Commission 526 P.2d 1274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
In determining whether there is substantial medical evidence to support the Commission’s decision in this case, , , , together.
Lockler v. Industrial Commission 512 P.2d 27 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Lockler v. Industrial Commission 512 P.2d 27 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
“A. No, if it just took a mild or moderate amount of effort to move it.” In petitioner’s reply brief before this court, he questions the propriety of Doctor Van Epp’s testimony based upon a file review without a personal examination of the petitioner
State Compensation Fund v. Lawrence 506 P.2d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State Compensation Fund v. Lawrence 506 P.2d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
At the oral argument the Fund raised the problem of medical testimony based upon a , ; , *299 (1972)
Garza v. Industrial Commission 498 P.2d 599 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Garza v. Industrial Commission 498 P.2d 599 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Moore v. Industrial Commission 492 P.2d 1222 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Moore v. Industrial Commission 492 P.2d 1222 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Pais v. Industrial Commission 492 P.2d 1175 Ariz. 1972
Pais v. Industrial Commission 492 P.2d 1175 Ariz. 1972