Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Maness v. Industrial Commission, 434 P.2d 643.

91 citing documents.

Travelers Insurance v. Industrial Commission 512 P.2d 875 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Davis v. Industrial Commission, 16 Ariz.App.
Ward v. Industrial Commission 511 P.2d 681 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Ward v. Industrial Commission 511 P.2d 681 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
to the effect that pain is not compensable.
Timmons v. Industrial Commission 510 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Timmons v. Industrial Commission 510 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
23-1044 he is entitled to monthly payments based on 55% of the difference between $585.00 and $277.31 until further order of the Commission; “(j) The purpose of Workman’s Compensation legislation is not to compensate for difficulty and pain but to compensate for lost earning capacity Maness vs. Industrial Commission, , ” It is from these Findings that petitioner requested review.
Cramer v. Industrial Commission 507 P.2d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Cramer v. Industrial Commission 507 P.2d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State Compensation Fund v. Cramer, supra; , Laird v. Industrial Commission, 8 Ariz.App.
Whitlock v. Industrial Commission 507 P.2d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Whitlock v. Industrial Commission 507 P.2d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
McDaniel v. Industrial Commission, 8 Ariz.App.
Greer v. Industrial Commission 494 P.2d 1339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Greer v. Industrial Commission 494 P.2d 1339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
our Supreme Court stated: “The purpose of the Workmen’s Compensation legislation was not to compensate for difficulty and pain, but to compensate for lost earning capacity.
Sutton v. Industrial Commission 493 P.2d 501 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Sutton v. Industrial Commission 493 P.2d 501 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Turley v. Industrial Commission, 10 Ariz.App.
Corr v. Industrial Commission 490 P.2d 841 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Corr v. Industrial Commission 490 P.2d 841 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
259 , ivas persuaded by an argument similar to petitioner’s and found the Commission’s determination of “no' loss of earning capacity” to be unsupported by the evidence, However, the Arizona Supreme Court disagreed and vacated the judgment of the: Court of Appeals at
Favela v. Industrial Commission 490 P.2d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Favela v. Industrial Commission 490 P.2d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Matson v. Industrial Commission 489 P.2d 858 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Matson v. Industrial Commission 489 P.2d 858 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Evidence of post-injury earnings raises a presumption of at least commensurate earning capacity, , Laird v. Industrial Commission, 8 Ariz.App.
Midland-Ross Corporation v. Industrial Commission 486 P.2d 793 Ariz. 1971
Midland-Ross Corporation v. Industrial Commission 486 P.2d 793 Ariz. 1971
As to this, , , we indicated that there is such a presumption where the return to work is under normal conditions.
Ihle v. Industrial Commission 484 P.2d 232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Ihle v. Industrial Commission 484 P.2d 232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
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
259 , and by the Supreme Court in a case with the same caption which was reported at , and vacated the Court of Appeals decision.
State Compensation Fund v. Cramer 474 P.2d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
State Compensation Fund v. Cramer 474 P.2d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Turley v. Industrial Commission 455 P.2d 470 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Turley v. Industrial Commission 455 P.2d 470 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
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
Lutich v. Industrial Commission 446 P.2d 251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
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
Lutich v. Industrial Commission 446 P.2d 251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
to obtaining and holding employment similar to that in which the disabled person was doing before the injury.”
Laird v. Industrial Commission 445 P.2d 79 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Soto v. City of Tucson 445 P.2d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Soto v. City of Tucson 445 P.2d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Laird v. Industrial Commission 445 P.2d 79 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
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

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by