Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Adams v. Industrial Commission, 552 P.2d 764.

44 citing documents.

Sena v. vivint/american Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Sena v. vivint/american Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Comm’n, –96 (1976) (holding that AMA Guides apply exclusively to the evaluation of permanent impairment insofar as they cover the specific impairment and percentage thereof).
Rubio v. Maricopa co/sentry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Rubio v. Maricopa co/sentry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Comm’n, (“[T]he AMA Guides apply exclusively to the evaluation of permanent impairment to the extent that the AMA Guides cover the specific impairment.”); A.A.C.
Baca v. All quality/copperpoint Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Baca v. All quality/copperpoint Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Comm'n, ("The Industrial Commission may disregard self-serving testimony of an interested witness .
Benafield v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 975 P.2d 121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Benafield v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 975 P.2d 121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
See also Cavco Industries v. Industrial Comm’n, , Adams v. Industrial Comm’n, , Cassey .
Simpson v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 942 P.2d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Simpson v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 942 P.2d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
at 68 , 722 P.2d at 236 ; accord Gomez v. Industrial Comm’n, , Smith v. Industrial Comm’n, -07 , -01 (1976); Adams v. Industrial Comm’n, -96 , -66 (1976).
Slover Masonry, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 761 P.2d 1035 Ariz. 1988
Slover Masonry, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 761 P.2d 1035 Ariz. 1988
Slover Masonry, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 745 P.2d 958 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Slover Masonry, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 745 P.2d 958 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
R4-13-113(D) (Rule 13(D)), and the consideration of 4 cases decided by our supreme court—Adams v. Industrial Comm’n, , Dutra v. Industrial Comm’n, , Gomez v. Industrial Comm’n, , and W.A.
Cassey v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 731 P.2d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Cassey v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 731 P.2d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Adams v. Industrial Comm’n
W.A. Krueger Co. v. Industrial Commission 722 P.2d 234 Ariz. 1986
W.A. Krueger Co. v. Industrial Commission 722 P.2d 234 Ariz. 1986
Rather, their purpose is to serve as a guideline in rating an impairment and are valid when the stated percentage “truly reflects the claimant’s loss.” Gomez v. Industrial Commission, 148 Ariz. at 152 , 716 P.2d at 26
Gomez v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZONA 716 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1986
Gomez v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZONA 716 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1986
we examined the use of the AMA Guides under the cited Commission rule.
W.A. Krueger Co. v. Industrial Commission 722 P.2d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
W.A. Krueger Co. v. Industrial Commission 722 P.2d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
the Arizona Supreme Court held that, pursuant to Rule 13(D), the Guides “apply exclusively to the evaluation of permanent impairment to the extent that the AMA Guides cover the specific impairment and the percentage thereof.” Id.
Gomez v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 716 P.2d 32 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Gomez v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 716 P.2d 32 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
O'Hara v. Superior Ct. of State of Ariz. 674 P.2d 310 Ariz. 1983
O'Hara v. Superior Ct. of State of Ariz. 674 P.2d 310 Ariz. 1983
289 , , vacated on other grounds
Dutra v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 659 P.2d 18 Ariz. 1983
Dutra v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 659 P.2d 18 Ariz. 1983
Desert Insulations, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 654 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Dutra v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 659 P.2d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Desert Insulations, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 654 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Dutra v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 659 P.2d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Cavco Industries v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZ. 631 P.2d 1087 Ariz. 1981
Cavco Industries v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZ. 631 P.2d 1087 Ariz. 1981
It shall include a clinical report in sufficient detail to support the percentage ratings assigned.” , and Smith v. Industrial Commission, supra, this Court recognized that Rule R-4-13-113 (former Rule 13(d)) does not require a finding of permanent impairment to be based only on the results of tests contained in the AMA Guides.
Hunter v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 633 P.2d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Hunter v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 633 P.2d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Smith v. *62 Industrial Commission
Cavco Industries v. Industrial Commission 631 P.2d 1094 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Cavco Industries v. Industrial Commission 631 P.2d 1094 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
The main thrust of petitioner’s argument is that under two recent decisions by the Arizona Supreme Court; , , the language of Rule 13(d) 1 of the Rules of Procedure for Workmen’s Compensation Hearings before the Industrial Commission of Arizona (A.C.R.R.R4-13-113(D)) has been so diluted that there no longer exists a definable standard
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
Turning to the substantive issues presented by petitioner, he initially attacks Dr. McCracken’s failure to rely on the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment as required by Industrial Commission Rule 13(d) and our Supreme Court’s
Kennecott Copper Corp. v. Industrial Commission 564 P.2d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Kennecott Copper Corp. v. Industrial Commission 564 P.2d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
289 , , rev’d on other grounds
Smith v. Industrial Commission 552 P.2d 1198 Ariz. 1976
Smith v. Industrial Commission 552 P.2d 1198 Ariz. 1976
In Adams v. Industrial Commission, Ariz., we indicated that Rule 13(d) may not be interpreted in such a manner as to deprive a claimant of just compensation.