Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Dunlap v. Industrial Commission, 363 P.2d 600.

56 citing documents.

Hernandez v. fedex/fedex Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Hernandez v. fedex/fedex Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Comm’n, (“there must be a causal connection between the employment and the injury”).
Reyes v. pinnacle/standard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Reyes v. pinnacle/standard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Sessions v. cigna/indemnity Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sessions v. cigna/indemnity Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Beasley v. Industrial Commission 858 P.2d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Beasley v. Industrial Commission 858 P.2d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
See 1 Larson, supra, § 13.11, at 3-502; see also Dunlap v. Industrial Comm’n, , ("[Tjhe Act does not contemplate a general health and accident fund____’’).
Ford v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 703 P.2d 453 Ariz. 1985
Ford v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 703 P.2d 453 Ariz. 1985
we stated: The terms ‘disease’ and ‘accident’ are no longer considered mutually exclusive.
Phoenix Pest Control v. Industrial Commission 655 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Phoenix Pest Control v. Industrial Commission 655 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
See Mead v. American Smelting & Refining Company, , , , Enyart v. Industrial Commission, 10 Ariz.App.
Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Industrial Commission 558 P.2d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Industrial Commission 558 P.2d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Slayton v. Industrial Commission 550 P.2d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Slayton v. Industrial Commission 550 P.2d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
The Carrier would have the Court go further and hold that the statutory revision of 1973, supra, somehow weakened the authority of cases such as: , , , , et al., which treated as compensable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act disabilities caused by diseases not enumerated in the old occupational disease statute, but caused or aggravated by accident or some special or unusual exposure.
State Compensation Fund v. Joe 543 P.2d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
State Compensation Fund v. Joe 543 P.2d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Yazzie refers to °a line of cases which state “that a disease, which is caused in part by the workman’s employment, can be considered accidental and compel payment of compensation under the Arizona Constitution, Article 18, § 8, 1 A.R.S.” , P.2d 600 (1961); , Reilly v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 1 Ariz.App.
State Compensation Fund v. Yazzie 541 P.2d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
State Compensation Fund v. Yazzie 541 P.2d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
See also, , , Reilly v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 1 Ariz.App.
Employers Mutual Liability Insurance v. Industrial Commission 539 P.2d 541 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Employers Mut. L. Ins. Co. of Wis. v. Indus. Com'n 539 P.2d 541 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Employers Mut. L. Ins. Co. of Wis. v. Indus. Com'n 539 P.2d 541 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Employers Mutual Liability Insurance v. Industrial Commission 539 P.2d 541 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Ayer v. Industrial Commission 531 P.2d 208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Ayer v. Industrial Commission 531 P.2d 208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Eventually the definition of accident was liberalized to the extent that an injury would be found within the meaning of the Act even though it developed slowly over a period of time; , , Reilly v. Industrial Commission, 1 Ariz.App.
Featherman v. Industrial Commission 524 P.2d 965 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Featherman v. Industrial Commission 524 P.2d 965 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
holding that the terms “disease” and “accident” are no longer considered mutually exclusive.
Marquez v. Industrial Commission 517 P.2d 1269 Ariz. 1974
Marquez v. Industrial Commission 517 P.2d 1269 Ariz. 1974
that pneumonia contracted through the inhalation of tractor fumes was compensable, saying: “At an early date a majority of jurisdictions in this country steadfastly held that to constitute an ‘accident’ within the meaning of the usual Workmen’s Compensation Act there must have been a sud
Marquez v. Industrial Commission 505 P.2d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Marquez v. Industrial Commission 505 P.2d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
This argument is based upon the remedial nature of the Arizona Workmen’s Compensation Act
O'CONNOR v. Industrial Commission 504 P.2d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
O'CONNOR v. Industrial Commission 504 P.2d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Enyart v. Industrial Commission, 10 Ariz.App.
Castellanos v. Industrial Commission 488 P.2d 675 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Castellanos v. Industrial Commission 488 P.2d 675 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Constitution, Article 18, § 8; , , ; Hannon v. Industrial Commission, 9 Ariz.App.
Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Industrial Commission 480 P.2d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Industrial Commission 480 P.2d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
See Reilly v. Industrial Commission, supra (repeated continuous exposure to lint, resulting in emphysema); , (pneumonia developed as the result of inhaling fumes from a cracked exhaust pipe); , (inhalation of fumes over a period of time) ; , (inhalation of carbon tetrachloride fumes).
Bergstresser v. Industrial Commission 474 P.2d 450 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Bergstresser v. Industrial Commission 474 P.2d 450 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Nunez v. Arizona Milling Company 439 P.2d 834 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Nunez v. Arizona Milling Company 439 P.2d 834 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
But in view of the very broad interpretation given to the word “accident” as used in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, , , Reilly v. Industrial Commission, 1 Ariz.App.
Davis v. Industrial Commission 406 P.2d 866 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Davis v. Industrial Commission 406 P.2d 866 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
As we said in Reilly v. Industrial Commission, supra: “The Workmen’s Compensation Act is remedial, and its terms should be liberally construed in order to effectively carry out the purpose for which it was intended, that being to place the burden of injury and death from industrial causes upon industry as a whole
Jones v. Industrial Commission 401 P.2d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Jones v. Industrial Commission 401 P.2d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
The Arizona Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Workmen’s Compensation Act is remedial and its terms should be liberally construed in order to effectively carry out the purposes for which it was intended, , ; , and this also applies to interpreting the “Rules of Procedure Before the Industrial Commission of Arizona”, published under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
Reilly v. Industrial Commission 398 P.2d 920 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Reilly v. Industrial Commission 398 P.2d 920 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
is remedial, and its terms should be liberally construed in order to effectively carry out the purpose for which it was intended, that being to place the burden of injury and death from industrial causes upon industry as a whole
Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Industrial Commission 395 P.2d 712 Ariz. 1964
Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Industrial Commission 395 P.2d 712 Ariz. 1964