Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Gullick v. Industrial Commission, 383 P.2d 123.

32 citing documents.

Dugan v. American Express Travel Related Services Co. 912 P.2d 1322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Dugan v. American Express Travel Related Services Co. 912 P.2d 1322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
E.g., Gullick v. Industrial Comm’n, , McCreary v. Industrial Comm’n
Lasiter v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 839 P.2d 1101 Ariz. 1992
Lasiter v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 839 P.2d 1101 Ariz. 1992
to which Lasiter refers in her brief, we held that [p]rior authorization for medical treatment reasonably held necessary by competent medical practitioners is not a prerequisite to the accident benefits of the Work[ers'] Compensation Act____ [S]o long as the course of treatment followe
Ball Mfg. v. Industrial Commission 827 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Ball Mfg. v. Industrial Commission 827 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
See Gullick v. Industrial Comm’n
Baudanza v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZONA 720 P.2d 110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Baudanza v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZONA 720 P.2d 110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
On review, the claimant denied that any notice was required, relying on supreme court authority rejecting a requirement of “[pjrior authorization for medical treatment reasonably held necessary by competent medical practition-ers____” Gullick v. Industrial Comm’n
Gates v. Industrial Commission 578 P.2d 607 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Gates v. Industrial Commission 578 P.2d 607 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Jaynes v. Industrial Commission, 7 Ariz.App.
Pickett v. Industrial Commission 547 P.2d 484 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Pickett v. Industrial Commission 547 P.2d 484 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Petitioner claims that the test imposed by the statute is not whether notice was given, but whether the therapy pool was “reasonably required,” at 241 , at 126 (1963) held that “[p]rior authorization for medical treatment reasonably held necessary by competent medical practitioners is not a prerequisite to the accident benefits of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.” However, in Gullick the Supreme Court clearly based its conclusion upon a constructi
American Smelting & Refining Co. v. Industrial Commission 544 P.2d 1133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
American Smelting & Refining Co. v. Industrial Commission 544 P.2d 1133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
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
1 A. Larson, The Law of Workmen’s Compensation § 12.20, at 192.23 (1968).” 480 P.2d at 35
Montano v. Industrial Commission 500 P.2d 318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Montano v. Industrial Commission 500 P.2d 318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Vossler v. Industrial Commission 489 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Vossler v. Industrial Commission 489 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
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
*23 , , ; , ; 1 A. Larson, The Law of Workmen’s Compensation § 12.20, at 192.23 (1968).
Torrez v. Industrial Commission 467 P.2d 245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Torrez v. Industrial Commission 467 P.2d 245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
in which the court indicated that the site of the disability remaining following an injury controlled what the award of compensation should be, * * * ” , stated: “ * * * The legal responsibility for workmen’s compensation benefits arises upon the occurrence of an injury by accident in the course of the employment and extends to the physical and mental consequences which are traceable to the accidental injury.
Colasacco v. Industrial Commission 445 P.2d 178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Colasacco v. Industrial Commission 445 P.2d 178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
found the Supreme Court stating: “ * * * When an injury caused by accident attributable to the employment aggravates a pre-existing physical condition or in combination with the pre-existing condition produces an injurious effect, the resulting medical, surgical and hospital or other t
Jaynes v. Industrial Commission 436 P.2d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Jaynes v. Industrial Commission 436 P.2d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Smith v. Martin Marietta Corporation 406 P.2d 746 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Smith v. Martin Marietta Corporation 406 P.2d 746 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Adkins v. Industrial Commission 389 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1964
Adkins v. Industrial Commission 389 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1964
Mead v. American Smelting & Refining Company, , ; McAllister v. Industrial Commission, 88 A