Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Chavez v. Industrial Commission, 529 P.2d 1181.

40 citing documents.

Holler v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZ. 680 P.2d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Holler v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZ. 680 P.2d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Nelson v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 656 P.2d 1230 Ariz. 1982
Nelson v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 656 P.2d 1230 Ariz. 1982
Any doubt as to the broad scope of the Commission’s discretion in applying the Parsons test, however
Cook v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 651 P.2d 365 Ariz. 1982
Cook v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 651 P.2d 365 Ariz. 1982
What is important is that the facts appear to warrant relief and that the delay is not unfair in its consequences to the carrier in that the carrier was not in some way damaged to his prejudice.” -6 , -3 (1974).
Town of El Mirage v. Industrial Commission 621 P.2d 286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Town of El Mirage v. Industrial Commission 621 P.2d 286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Judd v. Industrial Commission, 23 Ariz.App.
Keeler v. Industrial Commission 592 P.2d 1282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Keeler v. Industrial Commission 592 P.2d 1282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
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
this Court determined that the hearing officer had too narrowly limited the applicable rule and set aside the award so the hearing officer could decide whether the interests of justice required a waiver of the attorney’s
Chavez v. Industrial Commission 575 P.2d 340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Chavez v. Industrial Commission 575 P.2d 340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
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.
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.
Industrial Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Commission 554 P.2d 892 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Industrial Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Commission 554 P.2d 892 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Our decision that the award must be set aside, and the case remanded to the In *299 dustrial Commission, , , to the facts of this case.
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
In Parsons v. Bekins Freight, supra, the ignorance of the employee of causal connection because of lack of medical advice was considered sufficient cause for waiver; , the ignorance of a claimant and his subjective inability to understand the Commission’s average monthly wage notice was considered controlling; see also Judd v. Industrial Commission, 23 Ariz.App.
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.
Wimmer v. Industrial Commission 549 P.2d 619 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Wimmer v. Industrial Commission 549 P.2d 619 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
modified , , , would not help petitioner in view of the length of time he has waited to raise this issue and in view of the prejudice to the carrier.
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
Kleinsmith’s , , modified the Parsons v. Bekins Freight rule and requires the Commission to hold a hearing directed toward the merits of the claim where there is an untimely filing and that it was error to limit the issue at the hearing to
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
lings to show that the standards of those cases either have or have not been met, e. g., Van Horn v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, supra; Parsons v. Bekins Freight, supra; , , , Bernard v. The Industrial Commission of Arizona, 24 Ariz.App.
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
cision 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, , Camis v. The Industrial Commission of Arizona, 4 Ariz.App.
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
594 , review denied; , and the opinion on rehearing, , , , and Judd v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 23 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
f strict technical construction to these statutes: , , modified on rehearing, , ; , , , [1975] ; Cf. Judd v. The Industrial Commission of Arizona, 23 Ariz.App.
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
However, on December 31, 1974, , , which, in our opinion, cast serious doubt on the applicability of the principle of res judicata (finality of decision) to workmen’s compensation matters.