Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Janis v. Industrial Commission, 529 P.2d 1179.

50 citing documents.

Courey v. housing/copperpoint Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Courey v. housing/copperpoint Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Chacon v. Flowers Ace Ins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Chacon v. Flowers Ace Ins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Comm’n, United Asphalt of Ariz. v. Indus.
El Asali v. caveo/american Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
El Asali v. caveo/american Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Comm'n, 1 If all three of these factors are present, the untimeliness should be waived.
Banner Health v. Stauffer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Banner Health v. Stauffer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Comm’n of Ariz., (“The test is that if a claimant appears to have a meritorious position and the facts do not establish an excessive delay and the delay, itself, does not in some way prejudice the insurance carrier, the interest of justice require that the untimeliness of the filing be waived.”).
Harrelson v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 697 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Harrelson v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 697 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
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
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
Citizen's Savings & Loan v. Industrial Commission 586 P.2d 985 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Citizen's Savings & Loan v. Industrial Commission 586 P.2d 985 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
In this regard, Citizen’s relies upon Janis v. Industrial Comm’n, , , and Gurovich v. Industrial Comm’n, 23 Ariz.App.
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 late filing.
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
That the applicant’s delay in the premises is excessive, unfair, and unreasonable within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Law of Arizona, and the decisions of the Supreme Court of the State of Arizona in Janis v. Industrial Commission, [ , reh.
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.
Smith v. Industrial Commission 551 P.2d 90 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Janis v. Industrial Commission 551 P.2d 66 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.
Janis v. Industrial Commission 551 P.2d 66 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
The Arizona Supreme Court granted review and vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals, , on the basis that the Commission erred in holding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider whether the untimely filing of the request for review should have been waived.
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 the reasons for late filing.
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
vely recent cases from both this Court and the Supreme Court of Arizona on late filings 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
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, , Camis v. The Industrial Commission of Arizona
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
urpose of the statutes, the compensation *498 of injured workers, by the application of 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.
Chavez v. Industrial Commission 529 P.2d 1181 Ariz. 1974
Chavez v. Industrial Commission 529 P.2d 1181 Ariz. 1974
a case of a delay of eight days in which wé followed the holding in Parsons, pointing out that if a claimant appears to have a meritorious position and the facts do not establish excessive delay and the delay would not in some way prejudice the insurance carrier, the interests of justice requir