Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Matlock v. Industrial Commission, 215 P.2d 612.

46 citing documents.

westat/liberty v. Free Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
westat/liberty v. Free Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Comm’n, overruled on other grounds; accord 8 Arthur Larson and Lex K. Larson, Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law § 93.01[2][a], at 93-18 to -19 (2017).
Carr v. Industrial Commission 3 P.3d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Carr v. Industrial Commission 3 P.3d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
But cf. Matlock v. Industrial Comm’n, , (average monthly wage of a ranch-hand included the value of a “house, utilities, milk, butter, eggs and meat” furnished by the employer as part of the employee’s compensation), overruled on other grounds, Wiedmaier v. Industrial Comm’n
Lazarus v. Industrial Commission 947 P.2d 875 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Lazarus v. Industrial Commission 947 P.2d 875 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
“wages” under the statute: tips received by restaurant workers (Senor T’s) and cabdrivers (Scott); corporate stock received by an employee in lieu of cash (Harvey Auto Supply); a 40% commission on all sales made by the employee ( , ); “a house, utilities, milk, butter, eggs, and meat whenever cattle were slaughtered” (Matlock v. Industrial Comm’n, , ); title to mobile home trade-ins taken in lieu of salary by the general manager of a mobile home sale corporation (Insurance Co. of North America v
County of Maricopa v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 699 P.2d 389 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Dutra v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 659 P.2d 18 Ariz. 1983
Dutra v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 659 P.2d 18 Ariz. 1983
Holder v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 609 P.2d 1066 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Holder v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 609 P.2d 1066 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Wiedmaier v. Industrial Commission 589 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1978
Wiedmaier v. Industrial Commission 589 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1978
we stated: “In this case, the record discloses that petitioner’s failure to obtain employment was caused partly by his disability, and partly by economic conditions.
Fletcher v. Industrial Commission 587 P.2d 757 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Oquita v. Industrial Commission 587 P.2d 1187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Fletcher v. Industrial Commission 587 P.2d 757 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
The Court rejected the standard, previously enunciated in Matlock v. Industrial Comm’n, , that the employee’s earning capacity in such a situation should be based upon the wages which the employee would earn assuming he could obtain a job which he could physically perform.
Oquita v. Industrial Commission 587 P.2d 1187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
That is the stan *612 dard which was once adopted by the Supreme Court in Matlock v. Industrial Comm’n, , and which was expressly rejected in Schnatzmeyer v. Industrial Comm’n
Insurance Co. of North America v. Industrial Commission 567 P.2d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Insurance Co. of North America v. Industrial Commission 567 P.2d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Harvey Auto Supply, Inc. v. Industrial Commission, supra.
Still v. Industrial Commission 551 P.2d 591 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Still v. Industrial Commission 551 P.2d 591 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Glover v. Industrial Commission 531 P.2d 563 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Glover v. Industrial Commission 531 P.2d 563 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Langbell v. Industrial Commission 529 P.2d 227 Ariz. 1974
Langbell v. Industrial Commission 529 P.2d 227 Ariz. 1974
Estrada v. Industrial Commission, 10 Ariz.App.
Travelers Insurance v. Industrial Commission 512 P.2d 875 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Travelers Insurance v. Industrial Commission 512 P.2d 875 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
While it is true that the injured employee has the burden of showing his loss of earning capacity, , we hold that in the case under *346 consideration the employee adequately met that burden.
Moorehead v. Industrial Commission 495 P.2d 866 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Moorehead v. Industrial Commission 495 P.2d 866 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
the court held that in establishing the average monthly wage of an injured ranchhand, the Commission must consider the true value of a house, utilities, milk, butter, eggs and meat furnished by the employer to the employee as part of the compensation for his services.
Posey v. Industrial Commission 350 P.2d 659 Ariz. 1960
Allen v. Industrial Commission 347 P.2d 710 Ariz. 1959
Allen v. Industrial Commission 347 P.2d 710 Ariz. 1959
ustrial Commission, , ; , ; , ; , ; , ; , ; , .
Worthington v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 338 P.2d 363 Ariz. 1959
Worthington v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 338 P.2d 363 Ariz. 1959
Morris v. Industrial Commission 299 P.2d 652 Ariz. 1956
Morris v. Industrial Commission 299 P.2d 652 Ariz. 1956
He urges that the commission should have measured the difference between what he can earn now and the high wage he was earning at the time of the initial accident in June of 1950, , .
Schnatzmeyer v. Industrial Commission 270 P.2d 794 Ariz. 1954
Criticized Schnatzmeyer v. Industrial Commission 270 P.2d 794 Ariz. 1954
Vinson v. Industrial Commission 241 P.2d 794 Ariz. 1952
Vinson v. Industrial Commission 241 P.2d 794 Ariz. 1952
the commission would be justified under the evidence in this case to conclude that as soon as petitioner became readjusted to physical labor he would be able to perform the duties of a full time bartender, even though he has not reached that stage.
Davidson v. Industrial Commission 235 P.2d 1007 Ariz. 1951
Davidson v. Industrial Commission 235 P.2d 1007 Ariz. 1951
56-957, subsection (d), supra, as these were interpreted and applied in the following cases, viz.: Hoffman v. Brophy, supra; , ; , .
Huddleston v. Industrial CommisSion 233 P.2d 829 Ariz. 1951
Huddleston v. Industrial CommisSion 233 P.2d 829 Ariz. 1951
Whyte v. Industrial Commission 227 P.2d 230 Ariz. 1951
Eagle Indemnity Co. v. Hadley 218 P.2d 488 Ariz. 1950