Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Tatman v. Provincial Homes, 382 P.2d 573.

98 citing documents.

McNeely v. Industrial Commission 501 P.2d 555 Ariz. 1972
McNeely v. Industrial Commission 501 P.2d 555 Ariz. 1972
McNeely v. Industrial Commission 496 P.2d 611 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
McNeely v. Industrial Commission 496 P.2d 611 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
entitled to compensation for loss of earning capacity.” Tatman v. Provincial *189 Homes
Johnson v. Industrial Commission 498 P.2d 498 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Johnson v. Industrial Commission 498 P.2d 498 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Martinez v. Industrial Commission 498 P.2d 153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Martinez v. Industrial Commission 498 P.2d 153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Smith v. Martin Marietta Corporation, 2 Ariz.App.
Stringer v. Industrial Commission 492 P.2d 1230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Stringer v. Industrial Commission 492 P.2d 1230 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
State Compensation Fund v. Faulisi 471 P.2d 761 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
State Compensation Fund v. Faulisi 471 P.2d 761 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
the Supreme Court described at length the difference between medical causation and legal causation.
Copper v. Industrial Commission 463 P.2d 87 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Copper v. Industrial Commission 463 P.2d 87 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Even though claimant may have been predisposed to psychiatric problems, the fact that the accident made these psychiatric problems manifest is sufficient under the rule set forth by our Supreme Court in Tatman Provincial Homes, , to establish that the accident is the legal cause of the resulting psychiatric disability.” The petitioner alleges, we feel correctly, that the Commission has disregarded the only medical testimony before it on the question raised by his reopening petition in arriving a
Lyman v. Industrial Commission 461 P.2d 510 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Lyman v. Industrial Commission 461 P.2d 510 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Romero v. Industrial Commission 461 P.2d 181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Romero v. Industrial Commission 461 P.2d 181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Continental Casualty Co. v. Industrial Commission 455 P.2d 977 Ariz. 1969
Continental Casualty Co. v. Industrial Commission 455 P.2d 977 Ariz. 1969
Bedwell v. Industrial Commission 452 P.2d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Bedwell v. Industrial Commission 452 P.2d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
“Where an injury occurring in the scope of employment has aggravated a pre-ex-isting condition the workman is entitled to compensation' * *
Continental Casualty Co. v. Industrial Commission 445 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Continental Casualty Co. v. Industrial Commission 445 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Mead v. American Smelting & Refining Company, , , Colasacco v. Industrial Commission, 8 Ariz.App.
Valdon v. Industrial Commission 447 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1968
Valdon v. Industrial Commission 447 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1968
the issue of causation was presented.
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
ommission, , 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 treatment is compensable.” , , it was pointed out that: “ * * * [I]n the field of Workmen’s Compensation, the employer takes his employee as he is.
Selvidge v. American Airlines, Inc. 417 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Selvidge v. American Airlines, Inc. 417 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
In the latter case, the person who pushed the man must pay for all injuries resulting to him from his plunge.” ****** “Where an injury occurring in the scope of employment has aggravated a preexisting condition the workman is entitled to compensation for loss of earning capacity, (citations omitted)”
International Metal Products v. Industrial Commission 409 P.2d 319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
International Metal Products v. Industrial Commission 409 P.2d 319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Even though claimant may have been predisposed to psychiatric problems, , to establish that the accident is the legal cause of the resulting psychiatric disability.
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
Russell v. Industrial Commission 402 P.2d 561 Ariz. 1965
Russell v. Industrial Commission 402 P.2d 561 Ariz. 1965
This court, , , , , which stated: “ ‘The injury need not be the sole cause of disability, if it is a producing cause.’ 87 Ariz. at 199 , 349 P.2d at 633 .” Tatman, supra, indicated this court’s approval of Revles v. Industrial Com
Schreven v. Industrial Commission 393 P.2d 150 Ariz. 1964
Schreven v. Industrial Commission 393 P.2d 150 Ariz. 1964
Sanchez v. Industrial Commission 391 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1964
Sanchez v. Industrial Commission 391 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1964
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, , ; , ; , .
Rahar v. Industrial Commission 382 P.2d 656 Ariz. 1963
Rahar v. Industrial Commission 382 P.2d 656 Ariz. 1963
Vance v. Industrial Commission 382 P.2d 557 Ariz. 1963
Vance v. Industrial Commission 382 P.2d 557 Ariz. 1963
This rule was reiterated and clarified very recently in Tatman v. Provincial Homes, 93 Ariz.-, and requires no further discussion.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by