Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Whyte v. Industrial Commission, 227 P.2d 230.

61 citing documents.

Ellisor v. Az Ice peoria/cincinnati Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Ellisor v. Az Ice peoria/cincinnati Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Ibarra v. Olive garden/lm Ins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Ibarra v. Olive garden/lm Ins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Comm'n, which held that earnings in 1949 were not a reasonable basis for computing lost earning capacity from an injury that happened in 1942.
Davis v. mckelvey/national Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Davis v. mckelvey/national Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Schuck & Sons Construction v. Industrial Commission 138 P.3d 1201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Schuck & Sons Construction v. Industrial Commission 138 P.3d 1201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Whyte v. Industrial Comm’n
Parra v. Pedus, Transcontinental Insurance Company 141 P.3d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Parra v. Pedus, Transcontinental Insurance Company 141 P.3d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Warren v. Industrial Commission 39 P.3d 534 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Warren v. Industrial Commission 39 P.3d 534 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Comm’n, , -34 (1951); see also, e.g., Reavis v. Indus.
Reavis v. Industrial Commission 995 P.2d 716 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Reavis v. Industrial Commission 995 P.2d 716 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
See, e.g., Whyte v. Industrial Comm’n, -47 , -35 (1951).
Elias v. Industrial Commission 858 P.2d 652 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Elias v. Industrial Commission 858 P.2d 652 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Whyte v. Industrial Comm’n, , (measuring average monthly wage by constant “yardstick” requires adjustment for inflationary effects on wages); accord Oak Industries v. Industrial Comm’n, -11 , -32 (App.1987) (applying Whyte to expense reimbursement); Laker v. Industrial Comm’n, 139
Oak Indus. v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZ. 739 P.2d 829 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Oak Indus. v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZ. 739 P.2d 829 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Whyte v. Industrial Comm’n, , (emphasis added); accord, e.g., Arizona Public Service Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, , (assessment of lost earning capacity requires “yardsticks of the same length”).
McPeak v. Industrial Commission 741 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
McPeak v. Industrial Commission 741 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
The claimant urges that we abandon the majority’s , and Altamirano v. Industrial Comm., 22 Ariz.App.
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
University Mechanical Contractors v. Industrial Commission, 135 Ariz. at 368 , 661 P.2d at 218 ; -46 , -35 (1951).
County of Maricopa v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 699 P.2d 389 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Laker v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 679 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Laker v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 679 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
and Arizona Sand & , and principles of fairness mandate this result.
University Mechanical Contractors v. Industrial Commission 661 P.2d 215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
University Mechanical Contractors v. Industrial Commission 661 P.2d 215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
346 , 235 (1951), which held that the intent of the legislature under the predecessor of A.R.S.
Wiedmaier v. Industrial Commission 589 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1978
Wiedmaier v. Industrial Commission 589 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1978
The carrier contends, however, , dictates that a showing of unavailability of employment due to economic conditions alone will satisfy its burden of going forward.
Schneidewind v. Industrial Commission 586 P.2d 208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Schneidewind v. Industrial Commission 586 P.2d 208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
280 , , Arizona Public Service Company v. Industrial Commission, supra, and arrived at the aforementioned loss of earning capacity.
Fletcher v. Industrial Commission 587 P.2d 757 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Fletcher v. Industrial Commission 587 P.2d 757 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Those cases uniformly follow the policy enunciated in Whyte v. Industrial Comm’n, , that “a reduction or increase in earning capacity occasioned by general business conditions and not due to the injury cannot be considered by the commission as a basis for fixing or adjusting the compensation of an injured employee.” Id.
Gould v. Industrial Commission 552 P.2d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Gould v. Industrial Commission 552 P.2d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Schmitz v. Industrial Commission 549 P.2d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Schmitz v. Industrial Commission 549 P.2d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
We do not presume the prerogative of rewriting a statute which is clear and unambiguous.” 546 P.2d at 1137 Such reasoning is equally applicable here, and in view of the clear and unambiguous language, the dissent’s , is obviously misplaced.
Charles v. Industrial Commission 542 P.2d 1160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Charles v. Industrial Commission 542 P.2d 1160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
The resolution of the issue of Charles’
Dean v. Industrial Commission 537 P.2d 599 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Dean v. Industrial Commission 537 P.2d 599 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Applying the presumption, his post-injury earnings from his job — adjusted back to the time of his injury, , when compared with his preinjury average monthly wage of $591.00, shows his loss of earning capacity to be greater than 32.37 percent.
Springer v. Industrial Commission 533 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Altamirano v. Industrial Commission 527 P.2d 1096 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Altamirano v. Industrial Commission 527 P.2d 1096 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Continental Casualty Co. v. Industrial Commission 521 P.2d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Continental Casualty Co. v. Industrial Commission 521 P.2d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
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
the carrier contends that it was error for the hearing officer to equate the employee’s post-injury earnings in Georgia with his pre-injury earnings in Arizona, without some evidence which would serve to correlate the two.
Arizona Public Service Co. v. Industrial Commission 492 P.2d 1212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Arizona Public Service Co. v. Industrial Commission 492 P.2d 1212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
this decision is no longer applicable in determining the post-injury earning capacity of a workman who has incurred a permanent partial disability.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by