Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Smith v. Industrial Commission, 552 P.2d 1198.

58 citing documents.

Anderson v. All rock/twin City Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Anderson v. All rock/twin City Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Osman v. tungland/scf Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Osman v. tungland/scf Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Comm’n, -06 n.1, -1200 n.1 (1976).
Gutierrez v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 249 P.3d 1095 Ariz. 2011
Gutierrez v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 249 P.3d 1095 Ariz. 2011
Comm’n, , (observing that “[s]ubjective complaints of pain” are not within the scope of the AMA Guides, but are still compensable); see also Madrid v. St.
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
the court found sufficient evidence to establish permanent impairment because “the Guides were inapplicable in this ease” and “[testimony from both medical experts established that Simpson’s condition is medically stationary, that he suffers from industrially-related residual pain, and that his
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).
Universal Roofers v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZ. 931 P.2d 1130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Universal Roofers v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZ. 931 P.2d 1130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
See Smith v. Industrial Comm’n, , 305 n. 1, , 1199 n. 1 (1976).
Tsosie v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 905 P.2d 548 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Tsosie v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 905 P.2d 548 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
305 n. 1, , 1199 n. 1 (1976)
Fry's Food Stores v. Industrial Commission 866 P.2d 1350 Ariz. 1994
Fry's Food Stores v. Industrial Commission 866 P.2d 1350 Ariz. 1994
305 n. 1, , 1199 n. 1 (1976) *267 (adopting definitions from American Medical Association guidelines).
Salt River Project v. Industrial Commission 837 P.2d 1212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Salt River Project v. Industrial Commission 837 P.2d 1212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
See Smith v. Industrial Comm’n, , 305 n. 1, , 1199 n. 1 (1976) (adopting definition of “permanent impairment” in AMA Guides).
Fry's Food Stores v. Industrial Commission 845 P.2d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Fry's Food Stores v. Industrial Commission 845 P.2d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
section 23-901 can only mean medical or physical disability, (i.e., impairment, see Smith v. Industrial Comm’n, , 305-06 n. 1, , 1199-1200 n. 1 (1976)), because the adjectives “compensable,” “aggravated,” “prolonged,” and “accelerated” modify that term.
Carousel Snack Bar v. Industrial Commission 749 P.2d 1364 Ariz. 1988
Carousel Snack Bar v. Industrial Commission 749 P.2d 1364 Ariz. 1988
Smith v. Industrial Comm’n, , 307 n. 4, , 1201 n. 4 (1976).
Tucson Steel Division v. Industrial Commission 744 P.2d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Tucson Steel Division v. Industrial Commission 744 P.2d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
See generally Smith v. Industrial Comm’n, , (adopting definitions of "permanent impairment” and "permanent disability" in American Medical Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment).
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
The Preface also states that rating of permanent impairment “is a function that physicians alone are competent to perform.” In Smith v. Industrial Comm’n, , our supreme court adopted these definitions.
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
Perhaps the closest case factually to the present one is Smith v. Industrial Comm’n
Dye v. Industrial Commission 736 P.2d 373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Dye v. Industrial Commission 736 P.2d 373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
(adopting the definition of “permanent impairment” found in the preface to the AMA Guides, 1st ed.); cf. Guides at vii, 225-26 (2d ed. 1984).
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
(Guides do not cover impairment from degenerative changes and loss of strength); 3 , *173 (1976) (Guides do not cover subjective complaints of pain); 4 , (Guides do not cover second laminectomy at same level).
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
Low v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 680 P.2d 188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Low v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 680 P.2d 188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Our conclusion is' supported by the supreme court’s adoption, , of the American Medical Association’s definition of “permanent impairment” as “any anatomic or functional abnormality or loss after maximal medical rehabilitation has been achieved____” (emphasis added).
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
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
Lawler v. Industrial Commission, 24 Ariz.App.
Kovacs v. Industrial Commission 644 P.2d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Kovacs v. Industrial Commission 644 P.2d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
For an explanation of the utilization of the American Medical Association’s impairment 1 rating guidelines in Arizona’s workmen’s compensation practice
Asbestos Engineering & Supply Co. v. Industrial Commission 642 P.2d 903 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Asbestos Engineering & Supply Co. v. Industrial Commission 642 P.2d 903 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
The Arizona Supreme Court adopted the following definition of the phrase “permanent impairment” , : 1.
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
“Rule 13(d) may not be interpreted in such a manner as to deprive a claimant of just compensation.”
Franco v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 633 P.2d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Franco v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 633 P.2d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
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
and also adopted the definitions of “permanent impairment” and “permanent disability” found in the AMA guides: (1) Permanent Impairment.