Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Bill Breck Dodge, Inc. v. Industrial Commission, 675 P.2d 275.

28 citing documents.

Stewart v. Industrial Commission 926 P.2d 525 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Stewart v. Industrial Commission 926 P.2d 525 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
This principle was adopted and followed by the supreme court in Bill Breck Dodge, Inc. v. Industrial Comm’n, , which held: Increased pain, though subjective, requiring new or additional medical treatment, is a sufficient basis for reopening.
No Insurance Section/Special Fund Division v. Industrial Commission 927 P.2d 791 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
No Insurance Section/Special Fund Division v. Industrial Commission 927 P.2d 791 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Bill Breck Dodge, Inc. v. Industrial Comm’n, , Peter Kiewit Sons’ Co. v. Industrial Comm’n
EBI Companies/Orion Group v. Industrial Commission 875 P.2d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
EBI Companies/Orion Group v. Industrial Commission 875 P.2d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Given the long-standing rules that workers’ compensation statutes are to be liberally interpreted in favor of the worker, , and are to be construed so as to advance the purpose of placing the burden of industrial injuries upon *627 industry as a whole as opposed to the individual, Peter Kiewit Sons’ , we believe that the need to prevent double recovery on
Circle K Corp. v. Industrial Commission 880 P.2d 642 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Circle K Corp. v. Industrial Commission 880 P.2d 642 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Ariz. Const., art. 18, § 8, cited in Bill Breck Dodge, Inc. v. Industrial Comm’n, , (Feldman, J., specially concurring).
Hopkins v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 859 P.2d 796 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Hopkins v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 859 P.2d 796 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
See, e.g., Bill Breck Dodge v. Industrial Comm’n
Marron v. Industrial Commission 862 P.2d 888 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Marron v. Industrial Commission 862 P.2d 888 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Mustard v. Industrial Commission 792 P.2d 783 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Mustard v. Industrial Commission 792 P.2d 783 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Bill Breck Dodge, Inc. v. Industrial Comm’n
Koedyker Construction Co. v. Industrial Commission 764 P.2d 339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Koedyker Construction Co. v. Industrial Commission 764 P.2d 339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
“[A]n Industrial Commission decision will not be set aside if it is reasonably supported by the evidence.” Bill Breck Dodge
City of Scottsdale v. Industrial Commission 764 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
City of Scottsdale v. Industrial Commission 764 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Stainless and Bill Breck We begin our analysis with the predecessor to Stainless, Bill Breck Dodge Inc. v. Industrial Comm’n, , (Feldman, J., specially concurring).
State Compensation Fund v. Nelson 737 P.2d 1088 Ariz. 1987
State Compensation Fund v. Nelson 737 P.2d 1088 Ariz. 1987
Bill Breck Dodge v. Industrial Comm’n
Pearce Development v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZONA 712 P.2d 429 Ariz. 1985
Pearce Development v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZONA 712 P.2d 429 Ariz. 1985
Regnier v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 707 P.2d 333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Regnier v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 707 P.2d 333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Stainless Specialty Manufacturing Co. v. Industrial Commission 695 P.2d 261 Ariz. 1985
Stainless Specialty Manufacturing Co. v. Industrial Commission 695 P.2d 261 Ariz. 1985
Gallegos v. Industrial Commission 695 P.2d 250 Ariz. 1985
Gallegos v. Industrial Commission 695 P.2d 250 Ariz. 1985
(Feldman, J., concurring).