Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Russell v. Industrial Commission, 456 P.2d 918.

144 citing documents.

Meiners v. University of Arizona , State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Meiners v. University of Arizona , State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Parra v. Pedus, Transcontinental Insurance Company 141 P.3d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Parra v. Pedus, Transcontinental Insurance Company 141 P.3d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Comm’n, (“The practice of affirming findings set aside by the granting of a hearing or rehearing is a source of procedural confusion and should not continue.
Iphaar v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 831 P.2d 422 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Iphaar v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 831 P.2d 422 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
See, e.g., Russell v. Industrial Comm’n
Marriott Corp. v. Industrial Commission 750 P.2d 17 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Marriott Corp. v. Industrial Commission 750 P.2d 17 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Vandever v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 714 P.2d 866 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Vandever v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 714 P.2d 866 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Russell v. Industrial Comm’n, , Gamez v. Industrial Comm’n
Frazier v. Industrial Commission 702 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Frazier v. Industrial Commission 702 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Holding v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 679 P.2d 571 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Holding v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 679 P.2d 571 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
She concedes that ordinarily the claimant has the burden of proving compensability in a workmen's compensation proceeding, see, , but attempts to distinguish this proceeding from the normal workmen's compensation proceeding on the basis that in this "no insurance" proceeding the employer is protesting the initial Industrial Commission compensability award.
Roman v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 637 P.2d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Roman v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 637 P.2d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Sun Control Tile Co. v. Industrial Commission 571 P.2d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Sun Control Tile Co. v. Industrial Commission 571 P.2d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Also, , and German v. Industrial Commission, 12 Ariz.App.
Sandoval v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 571 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Sandoval v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 571 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Gamez v. Industrial Commission 559 P.2d 1094 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Gamez v. Industrial Commission 559 P.2d 1094 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Janis v. Industrial Commission 553 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Janis v. Industrial Commission 553 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
313 , ; , the chronology of the medical examinations is not wholly determinative of which physician’s testimony must be accepted.
Radlein v. Industrial Commission 553 P.2d 248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Radlein v. Industrial Commission 553 P.2d 248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
313 , , the chronology of the medical examinations is not wholly determinative of which physician’s testimony must be accepted.
Garcia v. Industrial Commission 548 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Garcia v. Industrial Commission 548 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State Compensation Fund v. Bunch 545 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
McMurray v. Industrial Commission 545 P.2d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
McMurray v. Industrial Commission 545 P.2d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State Compensation Fund v. Bunch 545 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Arellano v. Industrial Commission 545 P.2d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Arellano v. Industrial Commission 545 P.2d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
411 , , German v. Industrial Commission, 12 Ariz.App.
Lawler v. Industrial Commission 537 P.2d 1340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Lawler v. Industrial Commission 537 P.2d 1340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Raymer v. Industrial Commission, 18 Ariz.App.
Judd v. Industrial Commission 532 P.2d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Judd v. Industrial Commission 532 P.2d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
State Compensation Fund v. Bunch 531 P.2d 549 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
State Compensation Fund v. Bunch 531 P.2d 549 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
the Commission retains jurisdiction only for the purpose of altering, amending or rescinding its findings and award, upon showing of a subsequent change in physical condition of the claimant or upon a showing of subsequent reduction of earning capacity.”
Mills v. Industrial Commission 530 P.2d 385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Mills v. Industrial Commission 530 P.2d 385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Garcia v. Industrial Commission, 20 Ariz.App.
Mendoza v. Industrial Commission 528 P.2d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Mendoza v. Industrial Commission 528 P.2d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
275 , , but rather that the attempt to make the determination was unauthorized so that the holdings in those cases are not applicable to the argument presented here.
Huffman v. Industrial Commission 527 P.2d 1244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Huffman v. Industrial Commission 527 P.2d 1244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Talley *406 v. Industrial Commission, , , , Hale’s
In Re Trull 520 P.2d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
In Re Trull 520 P.2d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Castillo v. Industrial Commission 520 P.2d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Chavez v. Industrial Commission 520 P.2d 1178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974