Cited by

Comm’n of Ariz., (citing cases).

Comm’n, (“Unless a causal connection is clearly apparent to a lay person, the relationship must be established by expert medical testimony.”).

Comm’n, (“Unless a causal connection is clearly apparent to a lay person, the relationship must be established by expert medical testimony.”).

Comm'n, ("Unless a causal connection is clearly apparent to a lay person, the relationship must be established by expert medical testimony.").

Comm’n, (internal quotation omitted).

Comm’n, (“The vehicle of reopening is designed to mitigate the harsh consequences of general res judicata principles, which would preclude any reexamination of an applicant’s claim once it has been litigated and finally closed.”).

Comm’n, Condos v. Indus.

Comm’n, ), no genuine conflict in the medical testimony exists here; neither the specialist nor Rivera’s treating podiatrist related her ongoing complaints to the February 2017 incident.

Comm’n of Ariz., 19 (1985).

Comm'n, (emphasis in original).

Comm’n, it is allowed when the evidence presented at the current proceeding is qualitatively different from the evidence presented at the prior proceeding and “could not have been presented at the first hearing.” Bayless v. Indus.

Comm’n, (citation omitted).

Comm’n, -20, -69 (1985) (citing Ortega, 121 Ariz. at 557, 592 P.2d at 391).