Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Cross v. Industrial Commission, 303 P.2d 710.

38 citing documents.

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
” Brown, supra, 20 Ariz.App.
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.
State Compensation Fund v. Industrial Commission 535 P.2d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
State Compensation Fund v. Industrial Commission 535 P.2d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
wherein the medical witness testified that causation was attributable to one of three possibilities and the Court held that it could not compel the Industrial Commission to adopt a particular possibility.)
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
Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co. of Wisconsin v. Industrial Commission 500 P.2d 308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co. of Wisconsin v. Industrial Commission 500 P.2d 308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Lewis v. Industrial Commission 496 P.2d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Lewis v. Industrial Commission 496 P.2d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
We are unable to agree with the hearing officer’s determination that Dr. Johnson’s testimony was “equivocal and impregnated with substantial uncertainty” or that it was “susceptible of an interpretation that Dr. Johnson is speaking more of possibilities than probabilities.” , , as authority in support of his conclusion of finding no legal causation.
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
Kilkenny v. Industrial Commission 490 P.2d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Kilkenny v. Industrial Commission 490 P.2d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
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
em 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 .”
Sloan v. Industrial Commission 483 P.2d 586 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Sloan v. Industrial Commission 483 P.2d 586 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Malinski v. Industrial Commission, supra; , .” 104 Ariz. at 444, 445 , 454 P.2d at 986 .
Aragon v. Industrial Commission 481 P.2d 545 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Aragon v. Industrial Commission 481 P.2d 545 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
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
em 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.
Bedwell v. Industrial Commission 454 P.2d 985 Ariz. 1969
Bedwell v. Industrial Commission 454 P.2d 985 Ariz. 1969
Melinski v. Industrial Commission, supra; , .
Russell v. Industrial Commission 402 P.2d 561 Ariz. 1965
Russell v. Industrial Commission 402 P.2d 561 Ariz. 1965
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
propounded: “ * * * am I correct in stating that you are of the opin *416 ion, although you are not able to explain it beyond a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that this nerve damage has been due to exposure to excessive noises ?” The doctor replied “I am of that opinion but I would feel I couldn’t say it with great certainty with the previous records.” -226 , -713 , this Court concluded in similar circumstances, that: “We do not feel that under this state of the record, we would be just
Revles v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 352 P.2d 759 Ariz. 1960
Revles v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 352 P.2d 759 Ariz. 1960
Smith v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 308 P.2d 698 Ariz. 1957
Smith v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 308 P.2d 698 Ariz. 1957
Gronowski v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 306 P.2d 285 Ariz. 1957
Gronowski v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 306 P.2d 285 Ariz. 1957
Jones v. Industrial Commission 306 P.2d 277 Ariz. 1957
Jones v. Industrial Commission 306 P.2d 277 Ariz. 1957

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by