Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Helmericks v. Airesearch Manufacturing Co. of Ariz., 357 P.2d 152.
- 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
- Russell v. Industrial Commission 456 P.2d 918 Ariz. 1969
- Russell v. Industrial Commission 456 P.2d 918 Ariz. 1969
- Bedwell v. Industrial Commission 454 P.2d 985 Ariz. 1969
-
Bedwell v. Industrial Commission
454 P.2d 985
Ariz. 1969
Co., , ; , ; , ; , ; , .
- Malinski v. Industrial Commission 439 P.2d 485 Ariz. 1968
- Malinski v. Industrial Commission 439 P.2d 485 Ariz. 1968
- Malinski v. Industrial Commission 438 P.2d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
-
Malinski v. Industrial Commission
438 P.2d 38
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Nye v. Industrial Commission, 5 Ariz.App.
- Waller v. Industrial Commission 406 P.2d 197 Ariz. 1965
- Waller v. Industrial Commission 406 P.2d 197 Ariz. 1965
- Thiel v. Industrial Commission 404 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
-
Thiel v. Industrial Commission
404 P.2d 711
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
The following from our recent opinion in Helmericks v. AiResearch Manufacturing Co., 357 (sic) Ariz. 152 [ ], , is controlling in this case: ‘This Court has uniformly held that a finding of the Commission is conclusive upon this Court unless it has no support in the evidence.
- Belshe v. Industrial Commission 404 P.2d 91 Ariz. 1965
- Belshe v. Industrial Commission 404 P.2d 91 Ariz. 1965
- Russell v. Industrial Commission 402 P.2d 561 Ariz. 1965
-
Russell v. Industrial Commission
402 P.2d 561
Ariz. 1965
Nor is their testimony which was given on cross-examination decisive in that it was to the effect that the related events could, have had a causal relationship — , , which holds that possibilities are not sufficient to show causal relationship.
- Breidler v. Industrial Commission 383 P.2d 177 Ariz. 1963
-
Breidler v. Industrial Commission
383 P.2d 177
Ariz. 1963
Co. of Arizona, , , in support of the proposition that the word “possibility” may never be considered in assuming medical causation.
- Rahar v. Industrial Commission 382 P.2d 656 Ariz. 1963
- Rahar v. Industrial Commission 382 P.2d 656 Ariz. 1963
- Condos v. Industrial Commission 376 P.2d 767 Ariz. 1962
- Jones v. Industrial Commission 376 P.2d 778 Ariz. 1962
-
Condos v. Industrial Commission
376 P.2d 767
Ariz. 1962
Mead v. American Smelting & Refining Company
- Jones v. Industrial Commission 376 P.2d 778 Ariz. 1962
- Books v. Industrial Commission 376 P.2d 769 Ariz. 1962
-
Books v. Industrial Commission
376 P.2d 769
Ariz. 1962
Co. of Arizona, , wherein we said: “It must be remembered that the burden of proof is on the applicant to show affirmatively all of the material elements necessary to sustain an award, and that it is unnecessary for the Commission to disprove an asserted claim.
- Ware v. Industrial Commission 375 P.2d 384 Ariz. 1962
-
Ware v. Industrial Commission
375 P.2d 384
Ariz. 1962
* * * ” , we said: “Where * * * the only expert testimony touching the problem of causation is 'impregnated with substantial uncertainty’ and ‘ * * * as a whole *194 it is susceptible' of an interpretation that the doctor is speaking more of possibilities than probabilities,’ this Court has stated it' ‘ *
- Fendell v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 359 P.2d 988 Ariz. 1961
-
Fendell v. Industrial Commission of Arizona
359 P.2d 988
Ariz. 1961
is controlling in this case: “This Court has uniformly held that a finding of the Commission is conclusive upon this Court unless it has no support in the evidence.