Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Gronowski v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 306 P.2d 285.

45 citing documents.

Sanders v. bowie/american Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Sanders v. bowie/american Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Comm’n, -67 (1957); Honeywell
City of Phoenix v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 585 P.2d 257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
City of Phoenix v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 585 P.2d 257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
“The Commission cannot find such a relationship based upon mere possibilities, , or where the medical evidence is fraught with uncertainty.
Inspiration Consolidated Copper v. Industrial Commission 574 P.2d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Inspiration Consolidated Copper v. Industrial Commission 574 P.2d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Colorado River Inn v. Industrial Commission 567 P.2d 343 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Colorado River Inn v. Industrial Commission 567 P.2d 343 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Lamb v. Industrial Commission, 13 Ariz.App.
Hopper v. Industrial Commission 558 P.2d 927 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Eggleston v. Industrial Commission 539 P.2d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Eggleston v. Industrial Commission 539 P.2d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
light most favorable to sustaining the award, , and have resolved all conflicts in favor of the finding, , we still find that the evidence supports only one possible conclusion, , : Eggleston had disabling pain in addition to the partial loss of use of his arm.
Casson v. Industrial Commission 539 P.2d 189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Casson v. Industrial Commission 539 P.2d 189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
The evidence in this case is essentially not conflicting and there is only one possible inference to draw from that evidence, , : William L. Casson was killed as a result of an accident arising out of and taking place within the course and scope of his employment with Citizens Utilities Company.
Brown v. Industrial Commission 513 P.2d 1369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Brown v. Industrial Commission 513 P.2d 1369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
The Commission cannot find such a relationship based upon mere possibilities, , or where the medical evidence is fraught with uncertainty.
Moffett v. Industrial Commission 502 P.2d 546 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Moffett v. Industrial Commission 502 P.2d 546 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Micucci v. Industrial Commission 494 P.2d 1324 Ariz. 1972
Micucci v. Industrial Commission 494 P.2d 1324 Ariz. 1972
Micucci v. Industrial Commission 492 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Micucci v. Industrial Commission 492 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
See also Gronowski v. Industrial *147 Commission
Continental Casualty Co. v. Industrial Commission 489 P.2d 1267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Continental Casualty Co. v. Industrial Commission 489 P.2d 1267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
as stated: “Where, as here, the only expert testimony touching the problem of causation is ‘impregnated with substantial uncertainty’ and ‘ * * * as a whole it is susceptible of an interpretation that the doctor is speaking more of possibilities than probabilities,’ this Court has stated it ‘ * * * cannot require the commission to find a fact on possibilities.’ , ; -226 , -713 .”
Lamb v. Industrial Commission 477 P.2d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Lamb v. Industrial Commission 477 P.2d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
se: “ * * * Where, as here, the only expert testimony touching the problem of causation is ‘impregnated with substantial uncertainty’ and ‘ * * * as a whole it is susceptible of an interpretation that the doctor is speaking more of possibilities than probabilities,’ this Court has stated it ‘ * * * cannot require the commission to find a fact on possibilities.’ , ; -226 , -713 .” Helmericks v. Airesearch Mfg.
Neece v. Industrial Commission 439 P.2d 539 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Neece v. Industrial Commission 439 P.2d 539 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Thiel v. Industrial Commission, 1 Ariz.App.
Kennecott Copper Corp. v. Industrial Commission 420 P.2d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Kennecott Copper Corp. v. Industrial Commission 420 P.2d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Thiel v. Industrial Commission, 1 Ariz.App.
Thiel v. Industrial Commission 404 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Roberts v. Industrial Commission 404 P.2d 715 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Thiel v. Industrial Commission 404 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
We recently said that “For us to * * * find a fact, the evidence must be such that there is but one possible inference to be drawn therefrom.” , -287 .’ ” at 182, 183 , at 989 (1961).
Roberts v. Industrial Commission 404 P.2d 715 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
“Clearly, we cannot require the commission to find a fact on possibilities.” at 366, 367 , at 287 (1957).
Russell v. Industrial Commission 402 P.2d 561 Ariz. 1965
Russell v. Industrial Commission 402 P.2d 561 Ariz. 1965
Books v. Industrial Commission 376 P.2d 769 Ariz. 1962
Books v. Industrial Commission 376 P.2d 769 Ariz. 1962
: “ * * * For us to dictate that the commission must find a fact, the evidence must be such that there is but one possible inference to be drawn therefrom.” See also Norris v. Industrial Commission 90 Utah 256
Fendell v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 359 P.2d 988 Ariz. 1961
Fendell v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 359 P.2d 988 Ariz. 1961
We recently said that ‘For us to * * * find a fact, the evidence must be such that there is but one possible inference to be drawn therefrom.’ , -287 .” The opinion of all the doctors in this case was to the effect that petitioner’s work was not a causal factor in the occurrence of the heart attack.
Helmericks v. Airesearch Manufacturing Co. of Ariz. 357 P.2d 152 Ariz. 1960
Helmericks v. Airesearch Manufacturing Co. of Ariz. 357 P.2d 152 Ariz. 1960
accident.” Where, as here, the only expert testimony touching the problem of causation is “impregnated with substantial uncertainty” and “ * * * as a whole it is susceptible of an interpretation that the doctor is speaking more of possibilities than probabilities,” this Court has stated it “ * * * cannot require the commission to find a fact on possibilities.” , ; -226 , -713 .
Revles v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 352 P.2d 759 Ariz. 1960
Revles v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 352 P.2d 759 Ariz. 1960
See, Jones v. Industrial Commission, supra; , ; Hartford Accident & , 299 P. 1026 ; , ; Phelps Dodge Corp., , ; , 2
Hudgens v. Industrial Commission 321 P.2d 1039 Ariz. 1958
Hudgens v. Industrial Commission 321 P.2d 1039 Ariz. 1958

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by