Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Zimmerman v. Industrial Commission, 672 P.2d 922.

72 citing documents.

ARIZONA DPS v. Industrial Com'n 861 P.2d 603 Ariz. 1993
Arizona Department of Public Safety v. Industrial Commission 861 P.2d 603 Ariz. 1993
Crystal Bottled Waters v. Industrial Commission 847 P.2d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Crystal Bottled Waters v. Industrial Commission 847 P.2d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
See Macias v. Industrial Comm’n, , Roach v. Industrial Comm’n, , Zimmerman v. Industrial Comm’n
Doles v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 810 P.2d 602 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Doles v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 810 P.2d 602 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Davis v. Industrial Comm’n, , (emphasis added); accord, e.g., Zimmerman v. Industrial Comm’n, , see also 2 A. Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law § 57.20 at 10-30 (1989) (“The ultimate objective of the disability test is ...
Baca v. Industrial Commission 792 P.2d 760 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Baca v. Industrial Commission 792 P.2d 760 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Zimmerman v. Industrial Comm’n
Roberts v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 781 P.2d 586 Ariz. 1989
Roberts v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 781 P.2d 586 Ariz. 1989
In Zimmerman v. Industrial Comm’n, , we set aside a loss of earning capacity award because the evidence did not support the Commission’s finding that suitable employment was reasonably available to the claimant.
W.F. Dunn, Sr. & Son v. Industrial Commission 773 P.2d 241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
W.F. Dunn, Sr. & Son v. Industrial Commission 773 P.2d 241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Our supreme court has stated: The universally recognized ultimate issue in determining loss of earning capacity is: “to determine as near as possible whether in a competitive labor market the subject in his injured condition can probably sell his services and for how much.” Zimmerman v. Industrial Comm’n of Arizona, -84 , -28 (1983) (quoting Davis v. Industrial Comm’n, , ).
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, e.g., Zimmerman v. Industrial Comm’n
D'AMICO v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 717 P.2d 943 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
D'AMICO v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 717 P.2d 943 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
The carrier also relies on a recent Supreme Court case
Hoppin v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZ. 692 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Hoppin v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZ. 692 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Since we have concluded that the award must be set aside, we need not dwell on *126 claimant’s contention that the testimony of the carrier’s
MacIas v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 677 P.2d 1290 Ariz. 1984
MacIas v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 677 P.2d 1290 Ariz. 1984
Roach v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 672 P.2d 175 Ariz. 1983
Roach v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 672 P.2d 175 Ariz. 1983