Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Gallegos v. Industrial Commission, 695 P.2d 250.

34 citing documents.

Phoenix union/az School v. Estrada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Phoenix union/az School v. Estrada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Nolan v. Joseph painting/continental Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Nolan v. Joseph painting/continental Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Comm’n, is controlling, and that sufficient evidence supports the findings, the award is affirmed.
Martinko v. Am fence/old Rep Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Martinko v. Am fence/old Rep Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Lockridge v. Am king/special Fund Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Lockridge v. Am king/special Fund Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Asarco Inc. v. Industrial Commission 60 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Asarco Inc. v. Industrial Commission 60 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Comm’n, , (“Right or wrong, the facts determined by a final order are binding.”); Church, 150 Ariz. at 498 , 724 P.2d at 584 (after the ninety-day protest period neither a claimant nor the carrier can avoid the effect of a notice by claiming it to be erroneous); Cooper v. Commonwealth Title, 15 Ari
Brown v. Industrial Commission 19 P.3d 1237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Brown v. Industrial Commission 19 P.3d 1237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
See Gallegos v. Industrial Comm’n
Cornelson v. Industrial Commission 17 P.3d 114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Cornelson v. Industrial Commission 17 P.3d 114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
¶ 17 , which involved rearrangement under A.R.S.
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
("To meet his burden, the worker who petitions for rearrangement need `only show that his inability to secure or retain work is at least partially injury related.'") ( , , 108 (Ct.App.
Arizona Department of Public Safety v. Industrial Commission 861 P.2d 603 Ariz. 1993
(“To meet his burden, the worker who petitions for rearrangement need ‘only show that his inability to secure or retain work is at least partially injury related.’ ”) ( , ).
Kollasch v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 783 P.2d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Kollasch v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 783 P.2d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
See Gallegos v. Industrial Comm’n
Dutton v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 784 P.2d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Dutton v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 784 P.2d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
evidence of unsuitability, of unavailability, or of fraud, duress, or coercion, the administrative law judge, in his March 9, 1988, decision, concluded that claimant “is precluded as a matter of law from now claiming that the Stipulation was not supported by the evidence and that he has sustained a loss of earning capacity.” In reaching this conclusion, he relied on Gallegos v. Industrial Comm’n, , and cited it: As long as the prior award is final, whatever was decided is final and so is every f
Epstein's Custom Carpentry v. Industrial Commission 746 P.2d 25 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Epstein's Custom Carpentry v. Industrial Commission 746 P.2d 25 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
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
Cf. Gallegos v. Industrial Comm’n, , (supreme court determined preclusive scope of final permanent disability award by examining evidence supporting it).
Perry v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 741 P.2d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Perry v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 741 P.2d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Pima County Board of Supervisors v. Industrial Commission 716 P.2d 407 Ariz. 1986
Pima County Board of Supervisors v. Industrial Commission 716 P.2d 407 Ariz. 1986
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. Industrial Commission 724 P.2d 581 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. Industrial Commission 724 P.2d 581 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
We assume that the carrier, as well as the claimant, may avoid the "erroneous” effect of a
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