Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Fullen v. Industrial Commission, 595 P.2d 657.

27 citing documents.

Landon v. Industrial Commission 375 P.3d 86 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Landon v. Industrial Commission 375 P.3d 86 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Comm’n, (noting the purpose of the Act is to protect injured workers and compensate valid claims).
Gamez v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 141 P.3d 794 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Rustin v. Industrial Commission 910 P.2d 627 Ariz. 1996
Rustin v. Industrial Commission 910 P.2d 627 Ariz. 1996
See Fullen v. Industrial Comm’n, , (compensation act is liberally construed to accomplish its purpose of protecting injured workers and compensating valid claims).
Canon School District No. 50 v. W.E.S. Construction Co. 869 P.2d 500 Ariz. 1994
Canon School District No. 50 v. W.E.S. Construction Co. 869 P.2d 500 Ariz. 1994
See Fullen v. Industrial Comm’n
Arizona Department of Public Safety v. Industrial Commission 861 P.2d 603 Ariz. 1993
ARIZONA DPS v. Industrial Com'n 861 P.2d 603 Ariz. 1993
ARIZONA DPS v. Industrial Com'n 861 P.2d 603 Ariz. 1993
(compensation act is liberally construed to accomplish its purpose of protecting injured workers and compensating valid claims).
Arizona Department of Public Safety v. Industrial Commission 861 P.2d 603 Ariz. 1993
(compensation act is liberally construed to accomplish its purpose of protecting injured workers and compensating valid claims).
Allen v. Industrial Commission 787 P.2d 1107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Allen v. Industrial Commission 787 P.2d 1107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
See Fullen v. Industrial Comm’n
St. Vincent De Paul Thrift Store v. Industrial Commission 786 P.2d 1072 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
St. Vincent De Paul Thrift Store v. Industrial Commission 786 P.2d 1072 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Tucson v. Industrial Commission, 23 Ariz.App.
Slover Masonry, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 761 P.2d 1035 Ariz. 1988
Slover Masonry, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 761 P.2d 1035 Ariz. 1988
County of Maricopa v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 699 P.2d 389 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
County of Maricopa v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 699 P.2d 389 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Kar Products, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 678 P.2d 500 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Kar Products, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 678 P.2d 500 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Although the act is remedial and should be liberally interpreted, see, , *317 (1979), this principle does not permit us to “read into a statute something that is not within the manifest intent of the Legislature as gathered from the statute itself.”
Greenway, Etc. v. Indus. Com'n of Ariz. 636 P.2d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Greenway Baptist Church v. Industrial Commission 636 P.2d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Greenway Baptist Church v. Industrial Commission 636 P.2d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
In view of the fact that the Workmen’s Compensation Act is remedial in nature and should be liberally construed, , we agree with the conclusion of the hearing judge that claimant was injured while performing work for the church in the usual course of its business.
Greenway, Etc. v. Indus. Com'n of Ariz. 636 P.2d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
In view of the fact that the Workmen's Compensation Act is remedial in nature and should be liberally construed, , we agree with the conclusion of the hearing judge that claimant was injured while performing work for the church in the usual course of its business.
Salt River Project v. Indus. Com'n of Ariz. 627 P.2d 692 Ariz. 1981
Salt River Project v. Indus. Com'n of Ariz. 627 P.2d 692 Ariz. 1981
While the statute provides the “petition shall be accompanied by a statement from a physician setting forth the physical condition of the employee relating to the claim”, we have held that “as long as the medical report is filed within a reasonable time after the petition to reopen, it will be deemed to have accompanied the petition.”