Cited by

§ 23-1024, most courts have come to the conclusion that if workmen’s compensation and an action in tort against the employer are inconsistent remedies, then the pursuing of one as far as has been done in this case, so that an award has been rendered which is res judicata as between the parties, , precludes the claimant from proceeding in the other direction.

aid 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 awards; (c) upon a showing that his earning capacity has increased subsequent to said findings and award.”

as set forth in the following quotation therefrom: “ * * * , , 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 th

But whatever may be its proper interpretation, three years later in 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

2d 953, 956 (1951), we said: “In determining the ‘average monthly wage’ of an employee entitled to compensation, the work record is a factor to be considered when the injü , , , .

This court has held that in the absence of a proper application for rehearing within twenty days, the Commission loses jurisdiction and has no further power or authority to make rulings in the case: , ; , ; , ; and further, this court has said, once an award becomes final under its rules neither the Commission nor the Supreme Court has power to waive a rule or to permit any other jurisdictional act concerning the subject matter.

Steward v. Industrial Commission, 69 Ariz. *71 159, ; Petition of Hale, , .

ty, as the loss of one eye, one hand, one foot, or otherwise, the percentage of disability for a subsequent injury shall be determined by computing the percentage of the entire disability and deducting therefrom the percentage of the previous disability as it existed at the time of the subsequent injury.” In 1949 Justice Phelps, speaking for a unanimous court, , , in order to clarify existing confusion concerning the powers and duties of the Commission in compensation cases, made certain pronoun

The legislature has set out a specific manner for establishing an “average monthly wage”, which statute has several times been considered by this court, , .

Thereafter the Commission, , , used the average wage pattern of three other carpenters employed by this employer — as is provided for by section 56-952, A.C.A.1939 — to determine that petitioner’s average monthly wage was $397.76.

Zagar v. Industrial Commission, 1932, , ; Steward v. Industrial Commission, 1949, , .

Steward v. Industrial Commission, 1949, , .

In determining the “average monthly wage” of an employee entitled to compensation, the work record is a , ; , ; , .

to the effect that compensation may be adjusted upward when there is shown to be a loss in earning capacity due solely to the injury sustained or adjusted downward when the earning capacity has increased due solely to the increased efficiency or ability of the’ injured person.

at page 177, , we approve the rule laid down in State Road Commission v. Industrial Comm., 56 Utah 252 , 190 P. 544, 548 ; “ * * * When we consider the fact that no person can possibly have an earning capacity in the particular employment greater than the opportunities afforded by that employment, we