Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Helmericks v. Airesearch Manufacturing Co. of Ariz., 357 P.2d 152.

82 citing documents.

Sanders v. bowie/american Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Sanders v. bowie/american Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Co., Gronowski v. Indus.
Cft v. Le Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Cft v. Le Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Gary D. Hackworth v. Atlas Copco North America and Liberty Mutual Insurance Group Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Gary D. Hackworth v. Atlas Copco North America and Liberty Mutual Insurance Group Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Co. of Ariz., -16, -54 (1960) (holding expert testimony equivocal when physician testified about “possible causal relationship” and could not state with reasonable certainty whether ear condition resulted from high frequency noise or progression of preexisting disease).
Johnson-Manley Lumber v. INDUS. COM'N. 764 P.2d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Johnson-Manley Lumber v. INDUS. COM'N. 764 P.2d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Thus, the use of terms such as “contributed somewhat” and not “a great contributory factor,” and the doctor’s
M. M. Sundt Construction Co. v. Industrial Commission 602 P.2d 475 Ariz. 1979
M. M. Sundt Construction Co. v. Industrial Commission 602 P.2d 475 Ariz. 1979
Harbor Insurance Company v. Industrial Commission 545 P.2d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Harbor Insurance Company v. Industrial Commission 545 P.2d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
While it is true that equivocal testimony cannot create a conflict in the evidence, , we do not find the testimony of Dr. Ross to be uncertain or equivocal.
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
Co. of Arizona, , wherein the Court held that the Commission was free to reach either conclusion as to causation where the testifying physician spoke in terms of possibilities.
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
Beiner v. Industrial Commission 513 P.2d 946 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Beiner v. Industrial Commission 513 P.2d 946 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Co., , ” [Finding No. 14] “That the applicant has sustained no permanent physical or mental disability as a result of said industrial accident and is, therefore, not entitled to any permanent disability benefits.” [Finding No. 15] Counsel for all the parties have excerpted substantial sections of the tr
Martin v. Industrial Commission 513 P.2d 383 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Martin v. Industrial Commission 513 P.2d 383 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Co., *379 , Friesner v. Industrial Commission, 14 Ariz.App.
Haynes v. Industrial Commission 509 P.2d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Haynes v. Industrial Commission 509 P.2d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Co. of Ariz., , Benavides v. Industrial Commission, 19 Ariz.App.
Benavides v. Industrial Commission 508 P.2d 354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Benavides v. Industrial Commission 508 P.2d 354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
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
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
Employers Mut. L. Ins. Co. of Wis. v. Indus. Com'n 498 P.2d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Employers Mutual Liability Insurance v. Industrial Commission 498 P.2d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Employers Mut. L. Ins. Co. of Wis. v. Indus. Com'n 498 P.2d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Employers Mutual Liability Insurance v. Industrial Commission 498 P.2d 590 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
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.
State Compensation Fund v. Cooke 495 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State Compensation Fund v. Cooke 495 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 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
Kilkenny v. Industrial Commission 490 P.2d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Holley v. Industrial Commission 490 P.2d 32 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Kilkenny v. Industrial Commission 490 P.2d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Holley v. Industrial Commission 490 P.2d 32 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
Troska v. Industrial Commission 484 P.2d 12 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Troska v. Industrial Commission 484 P.2d 12 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Co. of Arizona, , Lewis v. Industrial Commission, 2 Ariz.App.
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
Co., , ; , ; , ; , ; , .
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

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by