Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Lowry v. Industrial Commission, 375 P.2d 572.

43 citing documents.

Rubio v. Maricopa co/sentry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Rubio v. Maricopa co/sentry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Asbestos Engineering & Supply Co. v. Industrial Commission 642 P.2d 903 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Asbestos Engineering & Supply Co. v. Industrial Commission 642 P.2d 903 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Yates v. Industrial Commission 568 P.2d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Yates v. Industrial Commission 568 P.2d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Lamb v. Industrial Commission, 27 Ariz.App.
Eldorado Insurance Co. v. Industrial Commission 558 P.2d 32 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Eldorado Insurance Co. v. Industrial Commission 558 P.2d 32 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Chalupa v. Industrial Commission, 17 Ariz.App.
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
Stevens v. Industrial Commission, 14 Ariz.App.
Walsh v. Industrial Commission 501 P.2d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Walsh v. Industrial Commission 501 P.2d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Gore v. Industrial Commission, 15 Ariz.App.
Chalupa v. Industrial Commission 498 P.2d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Chalupa v. Industrial Commission 498 P.2d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Altamirano v. Industrial Commission, 12 Ariz.App.
Raymer v. Industrial Commission 501 P.2d 25 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Raymer v. Industrial Commission 501 P.2d 25 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Asbury v. Industrial Commission, 15 Ariz.App.
Rutledge v. Industrial Commission 492 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1972
Rutledge v. Industrial Commission 492 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1972
Aros v. Industrial Commission 489 P.2d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Aros v. Industrial Commission 489 P.2d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
467 , , ; , and the court will not substitute its opinion for that of the Commission in resolving conflicts in the expert testimony.
Zazueta v. Industrial Commission 489 P.2d 273 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Zazueta v. Industrial Commission 489 P.2d 273 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
470 , Lowry v. In *427 dustrial Commission
Gore v. Industrial Commission 488 P.2d 984 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Gore v. Industrial Commission 488 P.2d 984 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Lawson v. Industrial Commission, 12 Ariz.App.
Buckhalter v. Industrial Commission 472 P.2d 78 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Buckhalter v. Industrial Commission 472 P.2d 78 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Where the result of an injury is not obvious, such as the loss of an arm or foot, medical testimony is necessary to establish the industrial injury and the extent thereof, , Bedel v. Industrial Commission, 5 Ariz.App.
Norris v. Industrial Commission 461 P.2d 694 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Norris v. Industrial Commission 461 P.2d 694 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
It is not a question which can be solved by the ordinary layman unless, of course, the result of the accident is one which is clearly apparent, i. e., the loss of a limb
Piepkorn v. Industrial Commission 454 P.2d 580 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Maness v. Industrial Commission 434 P.2d 643 Ariz. 1967
Maness v. Industrial Commission 434 P.2d 643 Ariz. 1967
Maness v. Industrial Commission 425 P.2d 447 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Ronquillo v. Industrial Commission 425 P.2d 135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Ronquillo v. Industrial Commission 425 P.2d 135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Dr. Westfall stated: “This must have been present, in my estimate, for at least two years, probably longer.” It is also apparent that the medical testimony which is controlling in a case of this kind, , is sufficient to reasonably support the Commission’s findings that the industrial accident aggravated this preexisting hypertension.
Maness v. Industrial Commission 425 P.2d 447 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
f his theory, and the law in Arizona is clear that: “If the result of an industrial accident is not one which is clearly apparent to a layman, such as a loss of limb or external lesion, physical condition of the injured employee after the accident and the causal relation of the accident to such conditions usually can only be determined by expert medical testimony.”
Waller v. Industrial Commission 406 P.2d 197 Ariz. 1965
Waller v. Industrial Commission 406 P.2d 197 Ariz. 1965
Cammeron v. Industrial Commission 405 P.2d 802 Ariz. 1965
Cammeron v. Industrial Commission 405 P.2d 802 Ariz. 1965
Southwest Forest Industries, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 392 P.2d 506 Ariz. 1964
Southwest Forest Industries, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 392 P.2d 506 Ariz. 1964
Bishop v. Industrial Commission 381 P.2d 598 Ariz. 1963
Bishop v. Industrial Commission 381 P.2d 598 Ariz. 1963