Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Schnatzmeyer v. Industrial Commission, 270 P.2d 794.

49 citing documents.

Kelly Services v. Industrial Commission 106 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Kelly Services v. Industrial Commission 106 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
the Arizona Supreme Court, in reviewing the Industrial Commission’s determination that a claimant had made insufficient effort to secure employment because he did not seek work outside the area of King-man, stated that a claimant should not be required to “abandon his established home
Paramo v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 918 P.2d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Paramo v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 918 P.2d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
zona Supreme Court has held that “it would be most unreasonable to require a complainant to abandon his established home and at an expense he can ill afford, travel from state to state or community to community in a hopeful but possibly futile effort to obtain a position.” See Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Industrial Comm’n, , Schnatzmeyer v. Industrial Comm’n
Arizona Department of Public Safety v. Industrial Commission 861 P.2d 603 Ariz. 1993
ARIZONA DPS v. Industrial Com'n 861 P.2d 603 Ariz. 1993
ARIZONA DPS v. Industrial Com'n 861 P.2d 603 Ariz. 1993
§ 23-1044(G); Fletcher, 120 Ariz. at 574 , 587 P.2d at 760 ("Thus, the result in a given case depends largely upon whether there has been an adequate factual showing that, following a non-work related termination, the industrial disability actually interfered with the worker's ability to obtain work."); , ("[I]t is the Commission's duty to consider whether and to what extent [the employee's] disabilities prevented employment.").
Arizona Department of Public Safety v. Industrial Commission 861 P.2d 603 Ariz. 1993
§ 23-1044(G); Fletcher, 120 Ariz. at 574 , 587 P.2d at 760 (“Thus, the result in a given case depends largely upon whether there has been an adequate factual showing that, following a non-work related termination, the industrial disability actually interfered with the worker’s ability to obtain work.”); , (“[I]t is the Commission’s duty to consider whether and to what extent [the employee’s] disabilities prevented employment.”).
Arizona Dept. of Public Safety v. Industrial Commission 823 P.2d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Arizona Dept. of Public Safety v. Industrial Commission 823 P.2d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
To rebut this argument, claimant cites Schnatzmeyer v. Industrial Comm’n, , Fletcher v. Industrial Comm’n, , and Oquita v. Industrial Comm’n
Kinnard v. Industrial Commission 823 P.2d 1289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
D'AMICO v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 717 P.2d 943 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
D'AMICO v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 717 P.2d 943 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Franco v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 633 P.2d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Franco v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 633 P.2d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Wiedmaier v. Industrial Commission 589 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1978
Wiedmaier v. Industrial Commission 589 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1978
See dissent of Chief Justice Phelps
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
§ 23-1044(F)(2) provides that compensation for an injury may be readjusted upwards, even if there is no change in the physical condition of the employee, but only when the loss of earning capacity is one “arising out of such injury.” In Schnatzmeyer v. Industrial Comm’n, , the Court was presented with the problem of an injured employee who was experiencing difficulty in finding employment in a period of economic decline.
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
Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co. of Wisconsin v. Industrial Commission 541 P.2d 580 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co. of Wisconsin v. Industrial Commission 541 P.2d 580 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
114 , P.2d 794 (1954); Timmons v. Industrial Commission, 20 Ariz.App.
Insurance Co. of North America v. Industrial Commission 488 P.2d 49 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Insurance Co. of North America v. Industrial Commission 488 P.2d 49 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Finally, , our Supreme Court noted that the cause of unemployment was an inference necessarily drawn from the evidence in the record before the Commission.
Ihle v. Industrial Commission 484 P.2d 232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Ihle v. Industrial Commission 484 P.2d 232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
v. Industrial Commission
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
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
v. Industrial Commission, , , *578 (1954).
Womack v. Industrial Commission 412 P.2d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Womack v. Industrial Commission 412 P.2d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
in support of its award, as follows: “ * * * [t]he cause of unemployment is necessarily an inference to be drawn from all the facts and circumstances bearing "on that issue * * * ” We are in complete agreement with this statement of the Supreme Court, but we do not believe it supports the award o
Shroyer v. Industrial Commission 405 P.2d 875 Ariz. 1965
Shroyer v. Industrial Commission 405 P.2d 875 Ariz. 1965
Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Industrial Commission 395 P.2d 712 Ariz. 1964
Distinguished Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Industrial Commission 395 P.2d 712 Ariz. 1964
That Russell M. Forrest, deceased, did die as a result of injury sustained March 24, 1962, and that the injury caused and contributed to the death of Russell M. Forrest.” , .
Phelps Dodge Corp., Morenci Br. v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N 367 P.2d 270 Ariz. 1961
Phelps Dodge Corp., Morenci Br. v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N 367 P.2d 270 Ariz. 1961
Prince v. Industrial Commission 361 P.2d 929 Ariz. 1961
Prince v. Industrial Commission 361 P.2d 929 Ariz. 1961
Allen v. Industrial Commission 347 P.2d 710 Ariz. 1959
Allen v. Industrial Commission 347 P.2d 710 Ariz. 1959
Timmons v. Industrial Commission 316 P.2d 935 Ariz. 1957
Timmons v. Industrial Commission 316 P.2d 935 Ariz. 1957
In the Schnatzmeyer case, supra, ( , ), this same contention was made.
Kelsey v. Industrial Commission 286 P.2d 195 Ariz. 1955
Kelsey v. Industrial Commission 286 P.2d 195 Ariz. 1955
The award recites that the Commission gave due consideration to all the factors enumerated in section 56-957, A.C.A.1939, , ; , ; , .
Schnatzmeyer v. Industrial Commission 276 P.2d 534 Ariz. 1954
Schnatzmeyer v. Industrial Commission 276 P.2d 534 Ariz. 1954