Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Roseberry v. Industrial Commission, 546 P.2d 802.

34 citing documents.

Mattos v. starwood/zurich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Mattos v. starwood/zurich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
§ 23-1044(B) (Supp. 2014), and are 4 MATTOS v. STARWOOD/ZURICH Decision of the Court by Dr. Patel’s October 20, 2010 medical report on which it is based, P.2d 802 (1976).
Asarco Inc. v. Industrial Commission 60 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Asarco Inc. v. Industrial Commission 60 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Res Judicata ¶ 14 The Fund’s
Cornelson v. Industrial Commission 17 P.3d 114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Cornelson v. Industrial Commission 17 P.3d 114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
We discuss and decide two issues: (1) whether the clo *270 sure of the 1989 claim with a , and (2) whether, when petitioning to reopen after uncontested denials of prior petitions to reopen
Teller v. Industrial Commission 879 P.2d 375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Teller v. Industrial Commission 879 P.2d 375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Instead, , because it is contradicted by the medical evidence in Pacific’s file.
Chavis v. Industrial Commission 885 P.2d 112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Chavis v. Industrial Commission 885 P.2d 112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Velez v. Industrial Commission 848 P.2d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Velez v. Industrial Commission 848 P.2d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
The employee alternatively argues that the suspension notice was “void ab initio” under Roseberry v. Industrial Comm’n
Borquez v. Industrial Commission 831 P.2d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Borquez v. Industrial Commission 831 P.2d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Two issues are presented on review: (1) whether the administrative law judge erred by failing to excuse the untimely hearing request; and (2) whether the November 16, 1989, notice of average monthly wage was void pursuant to Roseberry v. Industrial Comm’n
Pollard v. Industrial Commission 767 P.2d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Pollard v. Industrial Commission 767 P.2d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Argonaut also relies on Roseberry v. Industrial Comm’n, , for the proposition that where a notice of claim status is contrary to a medical report, it is void on its face and cannot have any res judicata effect.
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. Industrial Commission 724 P.2d 581 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. Industrial Commission 724 P.2d 581 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
The carrier has sought review contending the award is improper because: (1) The April 14, 1983 , (2) The February 6, 1984 Notice of Claim Status is entitled to be given effect, because it was issued pursuant to the Commission’s direction, and (3) A procedure must be judicially established to allow a carrier to correct an inaccurate Notice of Claim Status.
NCR Corp. v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 688 P.2d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
NCR Corp. v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 688 P.2d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
____ In the ease at bar, although the testimony reflects the applicant did not seek medical care for approximately one year after the issuance of the Notice, Dr. Moczynski’s medical report clearly contradicted the carrier’s finding the applicant had sustained no permanent impairment.
Payne v. Industrial Commission 664 P.2d 655 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Payne v. Industrial Commission 664 P.2d 655 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
221 , and notices contradicted by the supporting medical report
Minghelli v. INDUS. COMMISSION OF ARIZONA 630 P.2d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Minghelli v. INDUS. COMMISSION OF ARIZONA 630 P.2d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Parkway Manufacturing v. Industrial Commission 626 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Parkway Manufacturing v. Industrial Commission 626 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
(where a notice of claim status concluding that the claimant’s condition was stationary was contradicted by the accompanying medical report, the notice of claim status was held to be void on its face).
Calixto v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 616 P.2d 75 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Calixto v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 616 P.2d 75 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
creates another exception to the res judicata effect of an unprotested notice when the notice is void.
Godfrey v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 602 P.2d 821 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Godfrey v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 602 P.2d 821 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
However, this rule of finality does not apply in those cases where the Notice of Claim Status is void on its face, , or where a carrier unilaterally terminates benefits in noncompliance with the statutory requirement that application to the Commission be made for termination of benefits.
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
the conclusion of a stationary condition contained in the notice was unsupported by the very medical report upon which the notice depended; the notice there was held to have been void on its face.
Davis v. Industrial Commission 548 P.2d 849 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Distinguished Davis v. Industrial Commission 548 P.2d 849 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
This case is, therefore, , where the Supreme Court found a Notice of Claim Status void and without res judicata effect because the Notice was directly contrary to the physician’s report regarding the appropriateness of release and termination of benefits.