Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Adkins v. Industrial Commission, 389 P.2d 118.

113 citing documents.

Tyree v. banner/banner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Tyree v. banner/banner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Four seasons/am Zurich v. Cvijetic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Four seasons/am Zurich v. Cvijetic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Cullins v. Sequel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Cullins v. Sequel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Calder v. interstate/zurich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Calder v. interstate/zurich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission 243 P.3d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission 243 P.3d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
¶ 18 -46 , -22 (1964), in which our supreme court found unconstitutional a statutory revision allowing for change of an award of compensation only upon a showing of a subsequent change in the physical condition of a claimant.
Naslund v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZ. 110 P.3d 363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Naslund v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZ. 110 P.3d 363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
: Article 18, § 8 is not alone a constitutional directive to the legislature for future action.
Stainless Specialty Manufacturing Co. v. Industrial Commission 695 P.2d 261 Ariz. 1985
Stainless Specialty Manufacturing Co. v. Industrial Commission 695 P.2d 261 Ariz. 1985
Gallegos v. Industrial Commission 695 P.2d 250 Ariz. 1985
Gallegos v. Industrial Commission 695 P.2d 250 Ariz. 1985
faced with a situation where the petitioner accepted the commission’s award and attempted to continue with his usual employment but found that he was too disabled to continue regular work, this court held the statute unconstitutional because it limited rearrangements to situations in which the l
Mannel v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 688 P.2d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Mannel v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 688 P.2d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Holler v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZ. 680 P.2d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Holler v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZ. 680 P.2d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
In support of his argument
Roach v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 672 P.2d 175 Ariz. 1983
Roach v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 672 P.2d 175 Ariz. 1983
Harbor Insurance v. Industrial Commission 621 P.2d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Harbor Insurance v. Industrial Commission 621 P.2d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
See Adkins v., Industrial Commission, , a case which led to the enactment of A.R.S.
Scroggins v. Industrial Commission 597 P.2d 188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Scroggins v. Industrial Commission 597 P.2d 188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Moya v. Industrial Commission 557 P.2d 1091 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Moya v. Industrial Commission 557 P.2d 1091 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
and Kasprowiz v. Industrial Commission, 20 Ariz.App.
Harbor Insurance Company v. Industrial Commission 537 P.2d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Harbor Insurance Company v. Industrial Commission 537 P.2d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
1968; that again, historically and ‘pre-1969’ the Commission initially determined loss of earning capacity, and the amount of permanent compensation benefits due, and it was likewise solely the Commission’s duty and perrogative [sic] to rearrange and readjust on appropriate application therefor; , , that A. RS.
Cier v. Industrial Commission 517 P.2d 1076 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Cier v. Industrial Commission 517 P.2d 1076 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Hobbs v. Industrial Commission 513 P.2d 975 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Hobbs v. Industrial Commission 513 P.2d 975 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Employers Mut. Liability Ins. Co. of Wis. v. Contreras 509 P.2d 1030 Ariz. 1973
Employers Mut. Liability Ins. Co. of Wis. v. Contreras 509 P.2d 1030 Ariz. 1973
we said: But a medical expert is not ordinarily qualified by experience to state an opinion as to whether a claimant with his present disabilities is able to carry out the skills of a particular job — such as here, a diesel mechanic and welder.
Broadus v. Industrial Commission 503 P.2d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Broadus v. Industrial Commission 503 P.2d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
The Commission retained jurisdiction to amend the award on a
Davis v. Industrial Commission 494 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Davis v. Industrial Commission 494 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
*538 (1964) ; Moore v. Industrial Commission, 2 Ariz.App.
State Compensation Fund v. McCOMB AND INDUS. COM'N 492 P.2d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State Compensation Fund v. McCOMB AND INDUS. COM'N 492 P.2d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Hunt v. Industrial Commission 490 P.2d 575 Ariz. 1971
Hunt v. Industrial Commission 490 P.2d 575 Ariz. 1971
§ 23-1044 is unconstitutional and void.”
Houser v. Industrial Commission 489 P.2d 878 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Houser v. Industrial Commission 489 P.2d 878 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
The Commission’s attempt to base the petitioner’s , : “Nor may the Commission decide from the evidence of medical experts that petitioner was physically able to perform the same type of work at the present time as he was doing previous to his injury.
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Commission 487 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Commission 487 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
While at such a hearing medical testimony may not be competent without adequate foundation, ( , Moore v. Industrial Commission, 2 Ariz.App.
Hunt v. Industrial Commission 486 P.2d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Meva Corporation v. Industrial Commission 485 P.2d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by