Cited by

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

113 citing documents.

Meva Corporation v. Industrial Commission 485 P.2d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
§ 23-1044(F) , and one must not be confused by reference to the current A.R.S.
Heidler v. Industrial Commission 482 P.2d 889 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Heidler v. Industrial Commission 482 P.2d 889 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
a finding of physical functional impairment without the finding of physical functional disability is not sufficient to permit him to reopen his case in the event he has a future loss of earning capacity attributable to the impairment.
Hoffman v. Industrial Commission 482 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Hoffman v. Industrial Commission 482 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Newman v. Industrial Commission 481 P.2d 524 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Newman v. Industrial Commission 481 P.2d 524 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Williams v. Williams Insulation Materials, Inc.
Johnson v. Industrial Commission 476 P.2d 163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Johnson v. Industrial Commission 476 P.2d 163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
No increase or rearrangement shall be operative for any period prior to application therefor, and any increase or rearrangement shall be within the limits *311 and classifications provided in this chapter.” See also Rule 64 of the Rules of the Commission, 1 and one of the landmark cases in this area
Carabetta v. Industrial Commission 469 P.2d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Carabetta v. Industrial Commission 469 P.2d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Counsel for Carabetta urges that Rule 60 is unconstitutional
Meadows v. Industrial Commission 467 P.2d 954 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Meadows v. Industrial Commission 467 P.2d 954 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Had he lost his post-injury employment without fault on-his part and then been unable to secure-employment as the result of his industrial injury, the right to reopen for an increase, without showing a change in his physical' condition
Hornback v. Industrial Commission 466 P.2d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Hornback v. Industrial Commission 466 P.2d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
C; Industrial Commission Rule 64
Stevens v. Industrial Commission 461 P.2d 177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Stevens v. Industrial Commission 461 P.2d 177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
THE STATUTES A history of the Workmen’s
Sims v. Industrial Commission 460 P.2d 1003 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Sims v. Industrial Commission 460 P.2d 1003 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Williams v. Williams Insulation Materials, Inc.
Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission 447 P.2d 569 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission 447 P.2d 569 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
’ 102 Ariz. at 559 , 434 P.2d at 645 .” The award is affirmed.
McDaniel v. Industrial Commission 445 P.2d 860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
McDaniel v. Industrial Commission 445 P.2d 860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
” 102 Ariz. at 559 , 434 P.2d at 645 .
Mickelson v. Industrial Commission 437 P.2d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Mickelson v. Industrial Commission 437 P.2d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Maness v. Industrial Commission 434 P.2d 643 Ariz. 1967
Maness v. Industrial Commission 434 P.2d 643 Ariz. 1967
Powell v. Industrial Commission 423 P.2d 348 Ariz. 1967
Powell v. Industrial Commission 423 P.2d 348 Ariz. 1967
Elliott v. Industrial Commission 418 P.2d 611 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Elliott v. Industrial Commission 418 P.2d 611 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Herman v. Industrial Commission 414 P.2d 134 Ariz. 1966
Herman v. Industrial Commission 414 P.2d 134 Ariz. 1966
we stated: “ ‘ * * * the commission retains jurisdiction of all compensation cases for the purpose of altering, amending, or rescinding its findings and awards at the instance of either the workman, the insurer or the employe
Quirk v. Industrial Commission 412 P.2d 81 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Quirk v. Industrial Commission 412 P.2d 81 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Corrier v. Industrial Commission 411 P.2d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Corrier v. Industrial Commission 411 P.2d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Spicer v. Industrial Commission 411 P.2d 180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Spicer v. Industrial Commission 411 P.2d 180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
We only hold that since the petitioner failed to show the necessary facts for reopening, , , , the petition to reopen was properly denied.
Dabbs v. Industrial Commission 411 P.2d 36 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Dabbs v. Industrial Commission 411 P.2d 36 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Evidence that a new disability exists as a result of the injury by industrial accident is sufficient grounds to reopen a claim
Bierman v. Industrial Commission 410 P.2d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Bierman v. Industrial Commission 410 P.2d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Ream v. Wendt 410 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Ream v. Wendt 410 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Meador v. Industrial Commission 409 P.2d 302 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Meador v. Industrial Commission 409 P.2d 302 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
ses indicates just the opposite, that petitioner attempted to return to work and was unable to perform his assigned labors as a result of his physical disability: “Where the evidence of a claimant is corroborated by disinterested witnesses, *386 it may not be disregarded and the reasonable statements of unimpeached witnesses are presumed true when uncontradicted.”
Carr v. Industrial Commission 408 P.2d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Carr v. Industrial Commission 408 P.2d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Shroyer v. Industrial Commission 408 P.2d 406 Ariz. 1965

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by