Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Micucci v. Industrial Commission, 494 P.2d 1324.

148 citing documents.

State Compensation Fund v. Industrial Commission 543 P.2d 154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Gardner v. Industrial Commission, 19 Ariz.App.
Priedigkeit v. Industrial Commission 542 P.2d 1140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Priedigkeit v. Industrial Commission 542 P.2d 1140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
* Bearing in mind that the award must be affirmed if there is any reasonable basis in the evidence for it, , we must consider whether there was any expert evidence sufficient to create a conflict with Dr. Bunting’s evidence as to causation.
Perry v. Industrial Commission 542 P.2d 1096 Ariz. 1975
Perry v. Industrial Commission 542 P.2d 1096 Ariz. 1975
Nelson v. Industrial Commission, 24 Ariz.App.
Younger v. Industrial Commission 541 P.2d 962 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Younger v. Industrial Commission 541 P.2d 962 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
Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co. of Wisconsin v. Industrial Commission 541 P.2d 580 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the award, , , the finding that petitioner failed to establish suitable available employment in the Tucson area must be sustained.
Eggleston v. Industrial Commission 539 P.2d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Eggleston v. Industrial Commission 539 P.2d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
nal impairment of the ‘shoulder’ or any other part of his body causally related to the subject industrial episode of January 11, 1971; and therefore, legally and factually, the instant proceeding is distinguishable from Miller v. Industrial Commission, supra.” Although we have reviewed the evidence in a light most favorable to sustaining the award, , and have resolved all conflicts in favor of the finding, , we still find that the evidence supports only one possible conclusion, , (
Casson v. Industrial Commission 539 P.2d 189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Casson v. Industrial Commission 539 P.2d 189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Recognizing, as we must, that this Court reviews the factual record of The Industrial Commission of Arizona in a light most favorable to sustaining the award, , ; resolves all conflicts in favor of upholding the award, , and will not disturb an award if it is reasonably supported by the evidence, In re Estate of *387 Bedwell, , we stil
Perry v. Industrial Commission 539 P.2d 178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Brooks v. Industrial Commission 539 P.2d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Brooks v. Industrial Commission 539 P.2d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
It is axiomatic that in reviewing awards of the Industrial Commission of Arizona this Court will view the evidence in a light most favorable to sustaining the award, , and the Commission findings will *397 not be disturbed when the evidence is in conflict.
Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co. v. Industrial Commission 537 P.2d 613 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Castillo v. Industrial Commission 538 P.2d 402 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Castillo v. Industrial Commission 538 P.2d 402 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Reviewing the record here in a light most favorable to sustaining the award of the Commission, , we cannot conclude that the value of the EMG, and its use in this case, was not a matter to be resolved by the medical experts.
Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co. v. Industrial Commission 537 P.2d 613 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Although this latter condition was, according to the'medical testimony, caused primarily by excessive cigarette smoking over many years, viewing the medical testimony in a light most favorable to upholding the award of the Industrial Commission, , a lung condition known as silicatosis (not silicosis or asbestosis) probably contributed to Candelaria’s death.
Bliven v. Industrial Commission 535 P.2d 1309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Home Insurance v. Industrial Commission 535 P.2d 1305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Bliven v. Industrial Commission 535 P.2d 1309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to sustaining the award of the Industrial Commission of Arizona, , these are the facts necessary for the view of the decision of the Industrial Commission in this matter.
Home Insurance v. Industrial Commission 535 P.2d 1305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Reviewing the evidence in a light most favorable to sustaining the award, , the facts necessary for the decision are these: Glover had worked for D & L since early 1970 as a general superintendent.
O'DONNELL v. Industrial Commission 533 P.2d 675 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
O'DONNELL v. Industrial Commission 533 P.2d 675 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
the use of these magic words is not always essential.
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.
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
Although an award of the Industrial Commission will be set aside if it is not supported by the evidence, , it is equally true that such an award will be sustained if it is reasonably supported by the evidence
Brown v. Industrial Commission 513 P.2d 1369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Brown v. Industrial Commission 513 P.2d 1369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Spears v. Industrial Commission 513 P.2d 695 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Spears v. Industrial Commission 513 P.2d 695 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
h condition can only be determined by expert medical evidence if the result of the accident is not one that is clearly apparent to the layman, , and that we must consider all evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the findings of the Commission if reasonably supported by the evidence, , it is clear that the Industrial Commission did not err in finding that the injury in question was not causally related to the October 3, 1970, accident.
Damron v. Industrial Commission 512 P.2d 851 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Followed Damron v. Industrial Commission 512 P.2d 851 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
In light of the law that the burden of proof of each element of the claim is upon the petitioner, , that we must consider all evidence in a light most favorable to sustaining the findings and award of the Commission if reasonably supported by the evidence, , and that we are bound by such medical expert testimony in cases of this type, , it is clear that the Commission did not err in finding that the petitioner suffered no permanent disability.
State Compensation Fund v. Diaz 507 P.2d 130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State Compensation Fund v. Diaz 507 P.2d 130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
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
Hume v. Industrial Commission 501 P.2d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Hume v. Industrial Commission 501 P.2d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
H. In reviewing the transcript, , that some uncertainty is characteristic of all medical testimony.
Castillo v. Industrial Commission 498 P.2d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Castillo v. Industrial Commission 498 P.2d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State Compensation Fund v. Cooke 495 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State Compensation Fund v. Cooke 495 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
and find there is a conflict in the medical évidence and that there is a reasonable basis in the evidence from which the Commission could have reached its conclusion.
Holbrook v. Industrial Commission 495 P.2d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Holbrook v. Industrial Commission 495 P.2d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972