Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Davis v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 309 P.2d 793.

69 citing documents.

musd/az v. Special fund/estrada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
musd/az v. Special fund/estrada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Chenoweth v. R. behmer/copperpoint Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Chenoweth v. R. behmer/copperpoint Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Four seasons/am Zurich v. Cvijetic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Four seasons/am Zurich v. Cvijetic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
karsten/sentry v. Sigala Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
karsten/sentry v. Sigala Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Cullins v. Sequel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Cullins v. Sequel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
If the claimant presents evidence he or she made a good-faith effort 3 CULLINS v. SEQUEL YOUTH Decision of the Court Comm’n
Davis v. mckelvey/national Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Davis v. mckelvey/national Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Avila v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 193 P.3d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Avila v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 193 P.3d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
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
Proudfoot v. Industrial Commission 971 P.2d 186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Proudfoot v. Industrial Commission 971 P.2d 186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Davis v. Industrial Comm’n
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
Davis v. Industrial Comm’n
Doles v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 810 P.2d 602 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Doles v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 810 P.2d 602 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Davis v. Industrial Comm’n, , (emphasis added); accord, e.g., Zimmerman v. Industrial Comm’n, , see also 2 A. Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law § 57.20 at 10-30 (1989) (“The ultimate objective of the disability test is ...
Baca v. Industrial Commission 792 P.2d 760 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Baca v. Industrial Commission 792 P.2d 760 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Davis v. Industrial Comm’n
Roberts v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 781 P.2d 586 Ariz. 1989
Roberts v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 781 P.2d 586 Ariz. 1989
In determining loss of earning capacity the goal is to “determine as near as possible whether in a competitive labor market the subject in his injured condition can probably sell his services and for how much.” Davis v. Industrial Comm’n
W.F. Dunn, Sr. & Son v. Industrial Commission 773 P.2d 241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
W.F. Dunn, Sr. & Son v. Industrial Commission 773 P.2d 241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
reme court has stated: The universally recognized ultimate issue in determining loss of earning capacity is: “to determine as near as possible whether in a competitive labor market the subject in his injured condition can probably sell his services and for how much.” Zimmerman v. Industrial Comm’n of Arizona, -84 , -28 (1983) (quoting Davis v. Industrial Comm’n, , ).
MacIas v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 677 P.2d 1290 Ariz. 1984
MacIas v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 677 P.2d 1290 Ariz. 1984
Roach v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 672 P.2d 175 Ariz. 1983
Roach v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 672 P.2d 175 Ariz. 1983
Zimmerman v. Industrial Commission 672 P.2d 922 Ariz. 1983
Zimmerman v. Industrial Commission 672 P.2d 922 Ariz. 1983
Dye v. Industrial Commission, supra
Wells v. Industrial Commission 632 P.2d 558 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Wells v. Industrial Commission 632 P.2d 558 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
our Supreme Court stated in Dean v. Industrial Commission, supra, the general proposition that: “[t]he object is to determine as near as possible whether in a competitive labor market the subject in his injured condition can probably sell his services and for how much.
Evertsen v. Industrial Commission 573 P.2d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Evertsen v. Industrial Commission 573 P.2d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Magma Copper Co. v. Industrial Commission, 15 Ariz.App.
Dean v. Industrial Commission 551 P.2d 554 Ariz. 1976
Dean v. Industrial Commission 551 P.2d 554 Ariz. 1976
To support a finding in this respect the commission must have evidence that will at least demonstrate the reasonableness of the determination made.”
Dye v. Industrial Commission 530 P.2d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Diaz v. Industrial Commission 511 P.2d 187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Diaz v. Industrial Commission 511 P.2d 187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
lity the applicant has the physical and mental capabilities of working as a light delivery truck driver and can reasonably be expected to earn a sum, which when related to the wage scale at the time of injury amounts to the sum of $275.00 per month and that such work is available in the community where the applicant lives.” , : “The problem of determining the future earning capacity of a disabled man involves a certain amount of indefiniteness.
Timmons v. Industrial Commission 510 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Timmons v. Industrial Commission 510 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
our Supreme Court stated: “The problem of determining the future earning capacity of a disabled man involves a certain amount of indefiniteness.
Cramer v. Industrial Commission 507 P.2d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Cramer v. Industrial Commission 507 P.2d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
is illustrative: “The object is to determine as near as possible whether in a competitive labor market the subject in his injured condition can probably sell his services and for how much.” 82 Ariz. at 175 , 309 P.2d at 795 .
Sutton v. Industrial Commission 493 P.2d 501 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Sutton v. Industrial Commission 493 P.2d 501 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
See, , , (the Davis court speaks in terms of “future earning capacity”)
Jackson v. Industrial Commission 491 P.2d 19 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by