Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Pearce Development v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZONA, 712 P.2d 429.

60 citing documents.

Harvest madison/liberty v. Taft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Harvest madison/liberty v. Taft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Comm’n, opinion adopted in part, vacated in part, (successive injury doctrine adopted).
Cardenas v. amavizca/special Fund Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Cardenas v. amavizca/special Fund Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Comm’n, (ruling that factual findings can be implicit in an ALJ’s award).
Aguirre v. goodyear/copperpoint 432 P.3d 946 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Aguirre v. goodyear/copperpoint 432 P.3d 946 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
CopperPoint notes that a court will uphold an award where the ALJ “at least draws conclusions on the legal issues” and thereby allows the court to “determine from the record” whether the evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusions.
r&l/twin City v. Lemaster Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Canyon v. Acosta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Canyon v. Acosta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Comm’n, (concluding the ALJ’s credibility findings were implicit in the ALJ’s award).
r&l/twin City v. Lemaster Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Todorovic v. hilton/sedgwick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Todorovic v. hilton/sedgwick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Comm'n, (ALJ's findings may be implicit in an award).
O'Connor v. Arizona Medical Board Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
O'Connor v. Arizona Medical Board Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Comm’n, (The acceptance of certain testimony was “implicit in the award” because “[t]he administrative law judge could not have reached the result he did unless he also had resolved the conflict in the .
Calder v. interstate/zurich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Calder v. interstate/zurich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Southwest Gas Corp. v. Industrial Commission 25 P.3d 1164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Southwest Gas Corp. v. Industrial Commission 25 P.3d 1164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
v. Industrial Comm’n, , vacated in part on other grounds
Kaibab Industries v. Industrial Commission 2 P.3d 691 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Kaibab Industries v. Industrial Commission 2 P.3d 691 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
See Pearce Development v. Industrial Comm’n, -02 , -49 (1985), approved in pertinent part
Lay v. Industrial Commission 993 P.2d 1098 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Lay v. Industrial Commission 993 P.2d 1098 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
v. Industrial Comm’n, , approved in part
Martinez v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 962 P.2d 903 Ariz. 1998
Martinez v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 962 P.2d 903 Ariz. 1998
aff'd in part and vacated in part, , the court found the question to be whether the degeneration occurring at work “materially contributed to the disability or to the need for medical treatment.” Although Dr. Beauehene testified that claimant’s work accelerated the degeneration, that testimony lacked factual foundation because it a
AJ Goulder Elec. v. INDUS. COM'N 928 P.2d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
A.J. Goulder Electric v. Industrial Commission 928 P.2d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
AJ Goulder Elec. v. INDUS. COM'N 928 P.2d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
v. Industrial Comm'n, , approved in pertinent part
A.J. Goulder Electric v. Industrial Commission 928 P.2d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
v. Industrial Comm’n, , approved in pertinent part
Cohn v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 874 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1994
Cohn v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 874 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1994
v. Industrial Comm’n, , (based on judge’s stated legal conclusion, factual findings were obvious and could thus be inferred).
Mail Boxes, U.S.A. v. Industrial Commission 871 P.2d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Mail Boxes, U.S.A. v. Industrial Commission 871 P.2d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
582, 583, (findings implicit in an ALJ’s award).
Espinosa v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 824 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Espinosa v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 824 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
v. Industrial Comm’n, , analysis of successive injury doctrine approved
Industrial Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Commission 784 P.2d 709 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Industrial Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Commission 784 P.2d 709 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
See, e.g., Pearce Development v. Industrial Comm’n, -03 , -50 (App.1985), approved in part
Pinetop Truck & Equipment Supply v. Industrial Commission 776 P.2d 356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Pinetop Truck & Equipment Supply v. Industrial Commission 776 P.2d 356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
v. Industrial Comm’n, , (holding that the court would not set aside an award where the administrative law judge’s findings were implicit).
Hanley v. Industrial Commission 767 P.2d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Post v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 770 P.2d 308 Ariz. 1989
Distinguished Post v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 770 P.2d 308 Ariz. 1989
on which the court of appeals relied.
Hanley v. Industrial Commission 767 P.2d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Johnson-Manley Lumber v. INDUS. COM'N. 764 P.2d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Johnson-Manley Lumber v. INDUS. COM'N. 764 P.2d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
“Indeed, the subsequent activity may be merely the proverbial last straw.” , adopted in part and vacated in part on other grounds
Dr. Pepper Co. v. Industrial Commission 744 P.2d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Dr. Pepper Co. v. Industrial Commission 744 P.2d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
In advancing this argument, , approved in part and vacated in part, , , 650 *
Klosterman v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 747 P.2d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Klosterman v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 747 P.2d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
analysis of successive injury doctrine approved and adopted at
Mercante v. Industrial Com'n of Ariz. 735 P.2d 1384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Mercante v. Industrial Com'n of Ariz. 735 P.2d 1384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987