Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Wheeler v. Industrial Commission, 382 P.2d 675.

30 citing documents.

Madison Granite Co. v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZ. 676 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Madison Granite Co. v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZ. 676 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
E.g., Wheeler v. Industrial Comm’n
Bilbrey v. Industrial Commission 556 P.2d 27 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Bilbrey v. Industrial Commission 556 P.2d 27 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Arellano v. Industrial Commission 545 P.2d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Arellano v. Industrial Commission 545 P.2d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
After noting the burden on the claimant to show that the claimed permanent disability was in fact caused or contributed to by the industrial injury and was not merely a result of the natural progression of the preexisting disease, , Collins v. Industrial Commission, 3 Ariz.App.
Price v. Industrial Commission 529 P.2d 1210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Price v. Industrial Commission 529 P.2d 1210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Collins v. Industrial Commission, 3 Ariz.App.
Spears v. Industrial Commission 513 P.2d 695 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Spears v. Industrial Commission 513 P.2d 695 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
each element of the claim is upon the petitioner, , that the physical condition of the injured employee and the causal relationship of the accident to such condition can only be determined by expert medical evidence if the result of the accident is not one that is clearly apparent to the layman, , and that we must consider all evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the findings of the Commission if reasonably supported by the evidence, , it is clear that the Industrial Commission did
Damron v. Industrial Commission 512 P.2d 851 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Followed Damron v. Industrial Commission 512 P.2d 851 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
ndustrial Commission, , that we must consider all evidence in a light most favorable to sustaining the findings and award of the Commission if reasonably supported by the evidence, , and that we are bound by such medical expert testimony in cases of this type, , it is clear that the Commission did not err in finding that the petitioner suffered no permanent disability.
Mengel v. Industrial Commission 504 P.2d 72 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Mengel v. Industrial Commission 504 P.2d 72 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Collins v. Industrial Commission, 3 Ariz.App.
Bishop v. Industrial Commission 495 P.2d 482 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Bishop v. Industrial Commission 495 P.2d 482 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Peret v. Industrial Commission, 13 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
Collins v. Industrial Commission, 3 Ariz.App.
Thomas v. Industrial Commission 467 P.2d 247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Thomas v. Industrial Commission 467 P.2d 247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Bedel v. Industrial Commission, 5 Ariz.App.
Valdon v. Industrial Commission 447 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1968
Valdon v. Industrial Commission 447 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1968
Comm., , ; Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corp. v. Ind.
Reynolds Metals Co. v. Industrial Commission 439 P.2d 542 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Reynolds Metals Co. v. Industrial Commission 439 P.2d 542 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
143 , , and this is true in heart cases: “In order to establish a compensable claim petitioner must sustain the burden of proving a recognizable casual connection between the employment and the accidental injury, or more specifically in a case such as this, he must sustain the burden of proving that the
Bedel v. Industrial Commission 428 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Bedel v. Industrial Commission 428 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Wheeler v. Industrial *473 Commission
Waller v. Industrial Commission 406 P.2d 197 Ariz. 1965
Waller v. Industrial Commission 406 P.2d 197 Ariz. 1965
Sanchez v. Industrial Commission 391 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1964
Sanchez v. Industrial Commission 391 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1964