Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Davidson v. Industrial Commission, 235 P.2d 1007.
- Oliver v. Industrial Commission 481 P.2d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
- Oliver v. Industrial Commission 481 P.2d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
- Newman v. Industrial Commission 481 P.2d 524 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
- Newman v. Industrial Commission 481 P.2d 524 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
- 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
Montgomery v. Industrial Commission, 7 Ariz.App.
- Montgomery v. Industrial Commission 436 P.2d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
-
Montgomery v. Industrial Commission
436 P.2d 621
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
'The Supreme Court has stated: “The mere showing that a claimant has not returned to work is not proof of the fact that he cannot work because of a physical disability arising out of an industrial accident.” Davidson v. Industrial Commission (1951) , .
- Scherer v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 349 P.2d 786 Ariz. 1960
- Scherer v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 349 P.2d 786 Ariz. 1960
- Allen v. Industrial Commission 347 P.2d 710 Ariz. 1959
-
Allen v. Industrial Commission
347 P.2d 710
Ariz. 1959
There is no question but that the findings of the Commission should be affirmed if supported by competent evidence (e. g.: , ; , ).
- Timmons v. Industrial Commission 316 P.2d 935 Ariz. 1957
-
Timmons v. Industrial Commission
316 P.2d 935
Ariz. 1957
* * * The cause of unemployment is necessarily an inference to be drawn from all the facts and circumstances bearing on that issue * * * >» , , at page 1009, we stated: “The mere showing that a claimant has not returned to work is not proof of the • fact that he cannot work because of a physical disability arising out of an industrial accident.” This brings us to the crucial question as to whether there is any evidence in the record to susta
- Kelsey v. Industrial Commission 286 P.2d 195 Ariz. 1955
-
Kelsey v. Industrial Commission
286 P.2d 195
Ariz. 1955
1009: “The mere showing that a claimant has not returned to work is not proof of the fact that he cannot work because of a physical disability arising out of an industrial accident.” We hold the Commission did not err in refusing to make an award to petitioner based upon a permanent total disability.
- Bradshaw v. Industrial Commission 276 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1954
- Bradshaw v. Industrial Commission 276 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1954
- Jenkins v. Industrial Commission 272 P.2d 601 Ariz. 1954
- Harmon v. Industrial Commission 258 P.2d 427 Ariz. 1953
-
Harmon v. Industrial Commission
258 P.2d 427
Ariz. 1953
On the contrary, defendant has shown by expert testimony of the highest quality and degree the complete lack of any objective symptoms which would justify a conclusion of disability.” , , as follows: “The mere showing that a claimant has not returned to work is not proof of the fact that he cannot work because of a physical disability arising out of an industrial accident.” The above quote answers petitioner’s contention that there is ample evidence in the record that he was una
- McBride v. Industrial Commission 240 P.2d 865 Ariz. 1952
- McBride v. Industrial Commission 240 P.2d 865 Ariz. 1952
- Miles v. Industrial Commission 240 P.2d 171 Ariz. 1952
- Miles v. Industrial Commission 240 P.2d 171 Ariz. 1952