Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite English v. Industrial Commission, 237 P.2d 815.

69 citing documents.

France v. gila/arizona Counties Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
France v. gila/arizona Counties Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Comm’n, (“The Workmen’s Compensation Act was enacted to protect the workman and to relieve society of the burden caused by industrial accidents.
Linda Bell v. Ica/ Maricopa Cty/ Pinnacle Risk 341 P.3d 1149 Ariz. 2015
Linda Bell v. Ica/ Maricopa Cty/ Pinnacle Risk 341 P.3d 1149 Ariz. 2015
Comm’n, (“[T]he seven-day statute [§ 23-1062(B)] .
Carbajal v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 190 P.3d 737 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Meiners v. University of Arizona , State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Meiners v. University of Arizona , State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Douglas Auto & Equipment v. State Comp fund/zazueta 45 P.3d 342 Ariz. 2002
Douglas Auto & Equipment v. State Comp fund/zazueta 45 P.3d 342 Ariz. 2002
Comm’n, (discussing when the right to workers’ compensation accrues); Hartford Accident & Indem.
Aitken v. Industrial Commission 904 P.2d 456 Ariz. 1995
Aitken v. Industrial Commission 904 P.2d 456 Ariz. 1995
See, e.g., English v. Industrial Comm’n, , Pressley v. Industrial Comm’n
Wiley v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 847 P.2d 595 Ariz. 1993
Wiley v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 847 P.2d 595 Ariz. 1993
Senor T’s Restaurant, 131 Ariz. at 363 , 641 P.2d at 851 (emphasis added) (citing Faith Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Industrial Comm’n, , ); see also English v. Industrial Comm’n
McCreary v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 835 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
McCreary v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 835 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
(inhalation of gas use).
Lorentzen v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 790 P.2d 765 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Lorentzen v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 790 P.2d 765 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
(inhalation of gas use).
Pacific Fruit Express v. Industrial Commission 735 P.2d 820 Ariz. 1987
Pacific Fruit Express v. Industrial Commission 735 P.2d 820 Ariz. 1987
See also English v. Industrial Comm’n
Ford v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 703 P.2d 453 Ariz. 1985
Ford v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 703 P.2d 453 Ariz. 1985
See also Mead v. American Smelting & Refining Co., supra
Stainless Specialty Manufacturing Co. v. Industrial Commission 695 P.2d 261 Ariz. 1985
Stainless Specialty Manufacturing Co. v. Industrial Commission 695 P.2d 261 Ariz. 1985
Pascucci v. Industrial Commission, 126 Ariz. at 444 , 616 P.2d at 904
Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Industrial Commission 558 P.2d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Industrial Commission 558 P.2d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
See Reilly v. Industrial Commission, supra (repeated continuous exposure to lint, resulting in emphysema); , (pneumonia developed as the result of inhaling fumes from a cracked exhaust pipe); , (inhalation of fumes over a period of time); , (inhalation of carbon tetrachloride fumes).
Slayton v. Industrial Commission 550 P.2d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Slayton v. Industrial Commission 550 P.2d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
The Carrier would have the Court go further and hold that the statutory revision of 1973, supra, somehow weakened the authority of cases such as: , , , , et al., which treated as compensable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act disabilities caused by diseases not enumerated in the old occupational disease statute, but caused or aggravated by accident or some special or unusual exp
Riley v. Industrial Commission 536 P.2d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Riley v. Industrial Commission 536 P.2d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Marquez v. Industrial Commission 517 P.2d 1269 Ariz. 1974
Marquez v. Industrial Commission 517 P.2d 1269 Ariz. 1974
this Court held that the inhalation of nitric oxide and sulphur dioxide fumes causing an illness was compensable within the contemplation of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, notwithstanding there was no sudden or external violence.
Marquez v. Industrial Commission 505 P.2d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Marquez v. Industrial Commission 505 P.2d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
This argument is based upon the remedial nature of the Arizona Workmen’s Compensation Act
O'CONNOR v. Industrial Commission 504 P.2d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
O'CONNOR v. Industrial Commission 504 P.2d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
12 , ] (repeated continuous exposure to lint, resulting in emphysema); , (pneumonia developed as the result of inhaling fumes from a cracked exhaust pipe) ; , (inhalation of fumes over a period of time) ; , (inhalation of carbon tetrachloride fumes).
McNeely v. Industrial Commission 496 P.2d 611 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
McNeely v. Industrial Commission 496 P.2d 611 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Beck v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company 489 P.2d 710 Ariz. 1971
Beck v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company 489 P.2d 710 Ariz. 1971
To allow a respondent to discontinue payment of compensation when respondent appeals the order or award is contra to the general purpose of workmen’s compensation : “Where there is a doubt as to the construction, that construction should be adopted which will best effect its purpose of compensating the injured employee for his loss of earning power.”
Bird v. Industrial Commission 483 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Bird v. Industrial Commission 483 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
.” We find nothing in the record which justifies the Commission in finding that the petitioner knew or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, that he had sustained a compensable injury more than one year prior to the date of filing his claim with the Commission.
Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Industrial Commission 480 P.2d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Industrial Commission 480 P.2d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
See Reilly v. Industrial Commission, supra (repeated continuous exposure to lint, resulting in emphysema); , (pneumonia developed as the result of inhaling fumes from a cracked exhaust pipe); , (inhalation of fumes over a period of time) ; , (inhalation of carbon tetrachloride fumes).
Reed v. Industrial Commission 454 P.2d 157 Ariz. 1969
Reed v. Industrial Commission 454 P.2d 157 Ariz. 1969
“Where there is a doubt as to the construction, that construction should be adopted which will best effect its purpose of compensating the injured employee for his loss of earning power.”
Mofford v. Industrial Commission 443 P.2d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Mofford v. Industrial Commission 443 P.2d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Bonnin v. Industrial Commission 432 P.2d 283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Bonnin v. Industrial Commission 432 P.2d 283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
* * * ” , it is stated on page 89 of the Arizona Reports, 237 P.2d on page 817: “In determining this case there are certain fundamental principles that must be kept in mind.
Roberson v. Industrial Commission 404 P.2d 419 Ariz. 1965