Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Arnott v. Industrial Commission, 438 P.2d 419.

64 citing documents.

Cohn v. Industrial Commission 862 P.2d 881 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Cohn v. Industrial Commission 862 P.2d 881 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
It is the administrative law judge’s duty to resolve all conflicts in the evidence and to draw all reasonable inferences, , but uncontroverted medical evidence is binding on the Industrial Commission.
Pollard v. Industrial Commission 767 P.2d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Pollard v. Industrial Commission 767 P.2d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
See, e.g., Arnott v. Industrial Comm’n
Dye v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 736 P.2d 376 Ariz. 1987
Dye v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 736 P.2d 376 Ariz. 1987
DISCUSSION The court of appeals’
Dye v. Industrial Commission 736 P.2d 373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Dye v. Industrial Commission 736 P.2d 373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Low v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 680 P.2d 188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Low v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 680 P.2d 188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
She found that the claimant had a *54 permanent left upper extremity impairment, , concluded that this was a scheduled disability.
Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 558 P.2d 971 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 558 P.2d 971 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
The Supreme Court in Miller stated that if the disability in the leg had been the only disability in the case, , the award would have been scheduled.
Roeder v. Industrial Commission 556 P.2d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Roeder v. Industrial Commission 556 P.2d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
The Court’s reference to “disabling pain” necessitates that we digress briefly and before proceeding consider the Supreme Court’s
Harbor Insurance Company v. Industrial Commission 545 P.2d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Harbor Insurance Company v. Industrial Commission 545 P.2d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State Compensation Fund v. Industrial Commission 543 P.2d 154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
State Compensation Fund v. Industrial Commission 543 P.2d 154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Woppert v. Industrial Commission, 14 Ariz.App.
Eggleston v. Industrial Commission 539 P.2d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Eggleston v. Industrial Commission 539 P.2d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
involved a shoulder injury which resulted in a minimal loss of function in an arm.
Tharp v. Industrial Commission 535 P.2d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Tharp v. Industrial Commission 535 P.2d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
State Compensation Fund v. Industrial Commission 535 P.2d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
State Compensation Fund v. Industrial Commission 535 P.2d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Zaragoza v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, supra.
Reynolds Metal Co. v. Industrial Commission 527 P.2d 308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Reynolds Metal Co. v. Industrial Commission 527 P.2d 308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Miller v. Industrial Commission 517 P.2d 91 Ariz. 1973
Distinguished Miller v. Industrial Commission 517 P.2d 91 Ariz. 1973
Damron v. Industrial Commission 512 P.2d 851 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Mathieson v. Industrial Commission 512 P.2d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Damron v. Industrial Commission 512 P.2d 851 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
our Supreme Court, dealing with a “left shoulder” injury, held that such an injury was a scheduled injury under A.R.S.
Mathieson v. Industrial Commission 512 P.2d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Bradley v. Industrial Commission, 13 Ariz.App.
Pike v. Industrial Commission 510 P.2d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Pike v. Industrial Commission 510 P.2d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Where the expert medical evidence is in conflict it is the prerogative of the trier of fact to resolve such conflict
DuHamell v. Industrial Commission 510 P.2d 62 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
DuHamell v. Industrial Commission 510 P.2d 62 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Miller v. Industrial Commission 506 P.2d 671 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Miller v. Industrial Commission 506 P.2d 671 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
established the rule that in relation to the compensation awarded for the residuals of an industrial injury after the condition has become stationary, the situs of the disability and not the situs of the injury is controlling.
Evans v. Industrial Commission 505 P.2d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Evans v. Industrial Commission 505 P.2d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Rodgers v. Industrial Commission 488 P.2d 685 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Rodgers v. Industrial Commission 488 P.2d 685 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
the court emphasized that in determining whether an injury is scheduled or unscheduled, it is necessary to look to the place of residual impairment rather than to the place of injury.
Poage v. Industrial Commission 489 P.2d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Poage v. Industrial Commission 489 P.2d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Petitioner contends that the hearing officer mistakenly relied on three cases: , Heredia v. Industrial Commission, 10 Ariz.App.
Pollack v. Industrial Commission 489 P.2d 1246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Pollack v. Industrial Commission 489 P.2d 1246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Merrill v. Industrial Commission, 11 Ariz.App.
Leary v. Industrial Commission 487 P.2d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Leary v. Industrial Commission 487 P.2d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
and Bradley v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 13 Ariz.App.
Woppert v. Industrial Commission 480 P.2d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Woppert v. Industrial Commission 480 P.2d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
our Supreme Court held that the test to be applied is not the situs of the injury but the area of the body wherein the residual disability lies.