Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Steward v. Industrial Commission, 211 P.2d 217.

106 citing documents.

Fonseca v. Dole fresh/dole Food Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Fonseca v. Dole fresh/dole Food Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Comm’n, 180, 231 (1949) (holding the Industrial Commission “may correct its records to reflect the truth where it is apparent that a mistake has been made,” and that if the mistake is merely a typographical or clerical error, “the correction may be made without notice, by an order nunc pro tunc”) (cit
Schaeffer Trucking v. Industrial Commission 687 P.2d 933 Ariz. 1984
Schaeffer Trucking v. Industrial Commission 687 P.2d 933 Ariz. 1984
Pena v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 683 P.2d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Pena v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 683 P.2d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
held: In arriving at what reasonably represents the monthly earning capacity of the injured employee in the employment in which he is working at the time he is injured, other factors than the daily, weekly, or monthly wage or scale of wages must be considered.
Elco Veterinary Supply v. Industrial Commission 668 P.2d 889 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Elco Veterinary Supply v. Industrial Commission 668 P.2d 889 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Industrial Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Commission 554 P.2d 892 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Industrial Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Commission 554 P.2d 892 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Jacobsen v. Industrial Commission, 11 Ariz.App.
Dominquez v. Industrial Commission 529 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Dominquez v. Industrial Commission 529 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
This inference regarding an established formula for the seasonal employee is further enforced by the Supreme Court’s
Garcia v. Industrial Commission 510 P.2d 1050 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Garcia v. Industrial Commission 510 P.2d 1050 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Jacobson v. Industrial Commission, 11 Ariz.App.
Harbor Insurance Company v. Industrial Commission 509 P.2d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Harbor Insurance Company v. Industrial Commission 509 P.2d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
* * * , ; , .” at 164-165 , at 220 (1949).
Floyd Hartshorn Plastering Co. v. Industrial Commission 494 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Floyd Hartshorn Plastering Co. v. Industrial Commission 494 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Thus, , the court, referring to this definition sentence, stated: “This sentence .
State Compensation Fund v. McCOMB AND INDUS. COM'N 492 P.2d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State Compensation Fund v. McCOMB AND INDUS. COM'N 492 P.2d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
we treat this award as an amendment to correct a mutual mistake of fact.” , and appears to be contrary to the reasoning of the court in *305 , wherein the court stated: “Under these circumstances mistakes of factual matters and the conclusions to be derived therefrom
Corr v. Industrial Commission 490 P.2d 841 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Corr v. Industrial Commission 490 P.2d 841 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
as set out by the Arizona Supreme Court in Estate of Bedwell, , : “[I]t must appear that the evidence was such that, as a matter of law, the award of the commission cannot be sustained because there is no reasonable basis in the evidence upon which the commission could have reached its conclusion.” (Citations omitted) , the court held, infer- alia: ' “1.
Hunt v. Industrial Commission 490 P.2d 575 Ariz. 1971
Hunt v. Industrial Commission 490 P.2d 575 Ariz. 1971
injury resulting in the reduction or increase of his earning capacity; (b) upon a showing of a reduction in the earning capacity of the workman arising out of said injury where there is no change in his physical condition, subsequent to said findings and award; (c) upon a showing that his *571 earning capacity has increased subsequent to said findings and award.”
Mullins v. Industrial Commission 488 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Mullins v. Industrial Commission 488 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
the court said: “The commission has the power to temporarily suspend compensation where the workman refuses to cooperate or neglects to comply with the reasonable requirements of the commission directing him to pursue some particular course of action recommended by the medical board, designed fo
Meva Corporation v. Industrial Commission 485 P.2d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Meva Corporation v. Industrial Commission 485 P.2d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
In Adkins our Supreme Court stated: “ * * * 1949 , , on rehearing, this Court held: ‘That the commission retains jurisdiction of all compensation cases for the purpose of altering, amending, or rescinding its findings and awards at the instance of either the workman, the insurer or the employer (a) upon showing a change in the physical condition of the
Page v. Industrial Commission 469 P.2d 484 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Page v. Industrial Commission 469 P.2d 484 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Jacobsen v. Industrial Commission, 11 Ariz.App.
Diaz v. Industrial Commission 466 P.2d 799 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Diaz v. Industrial Commission 466 P.2d 799 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Vinyard v. Industrial Commission 466 P.2d 770 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Vinyard v. Industrial Commission 466 P.2d 770 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
the injured employee in the employment in which he is working at the time of the accident’ “ * * * The opportunity afforded for work in that particular employment whether it be intermittent or seasonable or whether it is continuous the year round is an important factor to be considered.”
Sims v. Industrial Commission 460 P.2d 1003 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Sims v. Industrial Commission 460 P.2d 1003 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Talley v. Industrial Commission 451 P.2d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Talley v. Industrial Commission 451 P.2d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Powell v. Industrial Commission 451 P.2d 37 Ariz. 1969
Powell v. Industrial Commission 451 P.2d 37 Ariz. 1969
“F. Prior to determination of average monthly wage, compensation shall be paid on a basis of a minimum monthly wage of two hundred dollars for employees twenty-one years of age or over.” 1 , , in a rehearing on an interpretation, we held: “The term ‘monthly wage’ shall mean the average wage paid during and over the month in which such employee is killed or injured.
Mickelson v. Industrial Commission 437 P.2d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Mickelson v. Industrial Commission 437 P.2d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
(As will be pointed out later, , .)
Herman v. Industrial Commission 414 P.2d 134 Ariz. 1966
Herman v. Industrial Commission 414 P.2d 134 Ariz. 1966
we stated: “ ‘ * * * the commission retains jurisdiction of all compensation cases for the purpose of altering, amending, or rescinding its findings and awards at the instance of either the workman, the insurer or the employer (a) upon showing a change in the physical condition of the workman subseque
Corrier v. Industrial Commission 411 P.2d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Corrier v. Industrial Commission 411 P.2d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Spicer v. Industrial Commission 411 P.2d 180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Spicer v. Industrial Commission 411 P.2d 180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
We only hold that since the petitioner failed to show the necessary facts for reopening, , , , the petition to reopen was properly denied.
Bierman v. Industrial Commission 410 P.2d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Bierman v. Industrial Commission 410 P.2d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
capacity; (b) upon a showing of a reduction in the earning capacity of the workman arising out of said injury where there is no change in his physical condition, subsequent to said findings and award; (c) upon a showing that his earning capacity has increased subsequent to said findings and award.” at 180 , at 231 (1949).