Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Revles v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 352 P.2d 759.

57 citing documents.

Fry's Food Stores v. Industrial Commission 866 P.2d 1350 Ariz. 1994
Fry's Food Stores v. Industrial Commission 866 P.2d 1350 Ariz. 1994
Furthermore, this approach is consistent with our prior treatment of dual-causation cases, see e.g., Ford, , ; Morrison-Knudsen Co., , Tatman, , ; Rev1 , Murray, , ; , and with the underlying purposes of the *270 workers’ compensation system.
Crystal Bottled Waters v. Industrial Commission 847 P.2d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Crystal Bottled Waters v. Industrial Commission 847 P.2d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Unlike an uncontradicted medical opinion, which the ALT must accept, Revles v. Industrial Comm’n, , the ALJ may reject the uncontradicted opinion of a vocational expert.
Bell Road Mini Storage v. Industrial Commission 605 P.2d 895 Ariz. 1980
Gates v. Industrial Commission 578 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1978
Gates v. Industrial Commission 578 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1978
Mead v. American Smelting & Refining Co., , , ” Morrison-Knudsen Co.
Morrison-Knudsen Co. v. Industrial Commission 566 P.2d 293 Ariz. 1977
Morrison-Knudsen Co. v. Industrial Commission 566 P.2d 293 Ariz. 1977
Mead v. American Smelting & Refining Co.
Russell v. Industrial Commission 533 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Russell v. Industrial Commission 533 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
the Supreme Court quoted a statement from 1 Schneider on Workmen’s Compensation, § 138.
Reynolds Metal Co. v. Industrial Commission 527 P.2d 308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Reynolds Metal Co. v. Industrial Commission 527 P.2d 308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Vega v. Industrial Commission 489 P.2d 1236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Vega v. Industrial Commission 489 P.2d 1236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Sutton v. Industrial Commission 509 P.2d 234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Sutton v. Industrial Commission 509 P.2d 234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
petitioner contends that he has established a prima facie case by showing that he is now allergic to flour and that he was never allergic to flour prior to the episode beginning in January 1969, and that when this and the testimony of the two doctors (Dr. Phares and Dr. Murray Spotnitz) who test
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
McNeely v. Industrial Commission 501 P.2d 555 Ariz. 1972
McNeely v. Industrial Commission 501 P.2d 555 Ariz. 1972
Reveles (sic) v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, , both citing 6 Schneider: Workmen’s Compensation Text, § 1542(i), p. 73.
Stringer v. Industrial Commission 492 P.2d 1230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Stringer v. Industrial Commission 492 P.2d 1230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Scoggins v. Industrial Commission 482 P.2d 482 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Scoggins v. Industrial Commission 482 P.2d 482 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
this court held: “Second, an industrial injury need not be the sole cause of death, in order to entitle decedent’s dependents to death benefits, as long as it appears that the injury contributed to and accelerated the inevitable.” ’ (emphasis theirs) “ , 4
Turner v. Industrial Commission 474 P.2d 472 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Turner v. Industrial Commission 474 P.2d 472 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
and Romero v. Industrial Commission, 11 Ariz.App.
Romero v. Industrial Commission 461 P.2d 181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Romero v. Industrial Commission 461 P.2d 181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Bedwell v. Industrial Commission 452 P.2d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Bedwell v. Industrial Commission 452 P.2d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Continental Casualty Co. v. Industrial Commission 445 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Continental Casualty Co. v. Industrial Commission 445 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Mead v. American Smelting & Refining Company, , , Colasacco v. Industrial Commission, 8 Ariz.App.
Valdon v. Industrial Commission 447 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1968
Valdon v. Industrial Commission 447 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1968
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.
Meeks v. Industrial Commission 436 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Meeks v. Industrial Commission 436 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Powell v. Industrial Commission 423 P.2d 348 Ariz. 1967
Powell v. Industrial Commission 423 P.2d 348 Ariz. 1967
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
Cammeron v. Industrial Commission 405 P.2d 802 Ariz. 1965
Cammeron v. Industrial Commission 405 P.2d 802 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
this court held: ‘Second, an industrial injury need not be the sole cause of death, in order to entitle decedent’s dependents to death benefits, as long as it appears that the injury contributed to and accelerated the inevitable.’ ” , at 564
Russell v. Industrial Commission 402 P.2d 561 Ariz. 1965
Russell v. Industrial Commission 402 P.2d 561 Ariz. 1965
this court held: “Second, an industrial injury need not be the sole cause of death, in order to entitle decedent’s dependents to death benefits, as long as it appears that the injury contributed to and accelerated the inevitable.” 88 Ariz. at 74 , 352 P.2d at 763 .
Tatman v. Provincial Homes 382 P.2d 573 Ariz. 1963