Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Magma Copper Co. v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZONA, 676 P.2d 1096.

44 citing documents.

Arvallo v. master/travelers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Arvallo v. master/travelers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
transact/imdemnity v. Beierle II Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
transact/imdemnity v. Beierle II Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Zawada v. american/zenith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Zawada v. american/zenith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Comm’n of Ariz., -48 (1983) 6 ZAWADA v. AMERICAN/ZENITH Decision of the Court (“[T]he time for presentation of evidence is at the hearing before the Commission.”).
Bottorff-Dragomir v. american/X L Speacialty Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Bottorff-Dragomir v. american/X L Speacialty Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Boyd v. Duraserv Corp dba/liberty Insurance Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Boyd v. Duraserv Corp dba/liberty Insurance Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Pillsbury v. Butler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Pillsbury v. Butler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Comm’n of Ariz., see also Bujanda v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., (consent cannot be implied “by admission without objection of evidence relevant to an issue within the pleadings”).
Jimenez v. Fry's Food Stores Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Jimenez v. Fry's Food Stores Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Comm’n, (“[T]he time for presentation of evidence is at the hearing before the Commission.”).
Crowe v. Bracale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Crowe v. Bracale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
american/xl v. Arias Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
american/xl v. Arias Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Comm’n, (citing 3 A. Larson, The Law of Workmen’s Compensation § 78.10) (1983).5 ¶17 In this case, the credible evidence established that the claimant provided the employer with forthwith notice of the June 2011 incident when she gave Dr. Song’s physical therapy prescription to her s
Parker, Springer Jr., Anderson v. Committee for Sustainable Retirement in Support of Initiative 314 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Parker, Springer Jr., Anderson v. Committee for Sustainable Retirement in Support of Initiative 314 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Special Events Service, Inc. and Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Roberto Dominguez 266 P.3d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Special Events Service, Inc. and Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Roberto Dominguez 266 P.3d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Comm’n, the issue here was not raised for the first time on review in this court.
Fidelity National Title v. Town of Marana Bronson Nessinger Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Fidelity National Title v. Town of Marana Bronson Nessinger Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Comm’n, -49, -07 (1983) (to properly raise affirmative defense party must give sufficient notice to allow opposing party to produce evidence on the issue).
Douglas Auto & Equipment v. State Comp fund/zazueta 45 P.3d 342 Ariz. 2002
Douglas Auto & Equipment v. State Comp fund/zazueta 45 P.3d 342 Ariz. 2002
Comm’n, -44, -02 (1983).1 ¶8 In this case, the administrative law judge expressly found that Zazueta’s non-compliance with section 23-908 could be excused both because he did not know a compensable injury had occurred before the time he reported the injury and because Douglas Auto suffered n
Douglas Auto & Equipment v. Industrial Commission 21 P.3d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Douglas Auto & Equipment v. Industrial Commission 21 P.3d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Magma Copper Co. v. Industrial Comm’n
Estate of Wesolowski v. Industrial Commission 965 P.2d 60 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Estate of Wesolowski v. Industrial Commission 965 P.2d 60 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
See Spear, 114 Ariz. at 603-05 , 562 P.2d at 1101-03 ; cf. Magma Copper Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, -49 , -07 (1983) (generally requiring affirmative defense to be raised during hearing process).
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
Magma, Copper Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, -49 , -07 (1983).
DKI Corp./Sylvan Pools v. Industrial Commission 819 P.2d 943 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
DKI Corp./Sylvan Pools v. Industrial Commission 819 P.2d 943 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
See Magma Copper Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, -49 , -07 (1983) (employer or carrier who intends to raise an affirmative defense must give notice sufficient to enable the worker to produce evidence on that issue); Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, , (failure to plead affirmative defense resu
Thompson v. Industrial Commission 772 P.2d 1116 Ariz. 1989
Thompson v. Industrial Commission 772 P.2d 1116 Ariz. 1989
§§ 23-908(D), -1061(A); see also Magma Copper Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, , vacated on other grounds, , 3 A. LARSON, THE LAW OF WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION § 78.10 (1988).
Pacific Fruit Express v. Industrial Commission 735 P.2d 820 Ariz. 1987
Pacific Fruit Express v. Industrial Commission 735 P.2d 820 Ariz. 1987
The administrative law judge also found that inasmuch as the claimant may not have made the logical connection between his hearing loss and his employment until he was informed by a physician, the lack of forthwith notice is justifiable and thus excused
Allen v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 733 P.2d 290 Ariz. 1987
Allen v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 733 P.2d 290 Ariz. 1987
Magma Copper Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, , Priedigkeit, 20 Ariz.App.
Pacific Fruit Express v. Industrial Commission 735 P.2d 816 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Pacific Fruit Express v. Industrial Commission 735 P.2d 816 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
the Arizona Supreme Court recognized that A.R.S.
Frazier v. Industrial Commission 702 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Frazier v. Industrial Commission 702 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985