Cited by

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

144 citing documents.

Trull v. Industrial Commission 520 P.2d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Castillo v. Industrial Commission 520 P.2d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
In decisions such as Talley, supra, Pedigo, supra, , the Arizona Supreme Court has recognized that this continuing jurisdiction necessitates that certain intermediate orders be accorded appealable status.
Chavez v. Industrial Commission 520 P.2d 1178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Trull v. Industrial Commission 520 P.2d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Garcia v. Industrial Commission, 20 Ariz.App.
Ringgold v. Industrial Commission 518 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Ringgold v. Industrial Commission 518 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
and cases cited; , and cases cited.
Garcia v. Industrial Commission 510 P.2d 1050 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Garcia v. Industrial Commission 510 P.2d 1050 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Taylor v. Industrial Commission 509 P.2d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Taylor v. Industrial Commission 509 P.2d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Pew v. Industrial Commission 508 P.2d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Pew v. Industrial Commission 508 P.2d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Kuchinski v. Industrial Commission, 11 Ariz.App.
Clark v. Industrial Commission 502 P.2d 185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Clark v. Industrial Commission 502 P.2d 185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
f orthopedists Dr. Bishop and Dr. Goldsmith, establishes that although applicant does have a minimal medical impairment (permanently compressed L-l vertebra) which could reasonably, under certain conditions, produce some discomfort, said condition does not constitute a physical functional impairment, or functional disability at the present time (Russell v. Industrial Commission of Arizona (1969), , ; Cramer v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, supra [ 13 Ariz.App.
Essig v. Industrial Commission 498 P.2d 183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Essig v. Industrial Commission 498 P.2d 183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Parks v. Industrial Commission 498 P.2d 187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Parks v. Industrial Commission 498 P.2d 187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Land v. Industrial Commission 496 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1972
Land v. Industrial Commission 496 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1972
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Industrial Commission 495 P.2d 1344 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Industrial Commission 495 P.2d 1344 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Bishop v. Industrial Commission 495 P.2d 482 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Bishop v. Industrial Commission 495 P.2d 482 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Parsons v. Bekins Freight 493 P.2d 913 Ariz. 1972
Parsons v. Bekins Freight 493 P.2d 913 Ariz. 1972
State Compensation Fund v. McCOMB AND INDUS. COM'N 492 P.2d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State Compensation Fund v. McCOMB AND INDUS. COM'N 492 P.2d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Brewer v. Industrial Commission 492 P.2d 1256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Brewer v. Industrial Commission 492 P.2d 1256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Saline v. Industrial Commission 492 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Saline v. Industrial Commission 492 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Walsh v. Industrial Commission, 16 Ariz.App.
Land v. Industrial Commission 486 P.2d 229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Land v. Industrial Commission 486 P.2d 229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
and this Court’s opinion in Cauley.
Beck v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company 489 P.2d 710 Ariz. 1971
Beck v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company 489 P.2d 710 Ariz. 1971
il 7, 1969, until further order of the Commission on the basis of 55% of the difference between any earnings he may have and his average monthly wage, such pay *478 ments to be deductible from any future additional benefits which may ultimately be due said applicant.” The 12 November 1969 decision was an award within the meaning of our Workmen’s Compensation Law, , and because not timely protested it became a final award.
Pinkerton v. Industrial Commission 488 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Pinkerton v. Industrial Commission 488 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Johnson v. Industrial Commission 487 P.2d 759 Ariz. 1971
Johnson v. Industrial Commission 487 P.2d 759 Ariz. 1971
be reasonably necessary to the reopening of applicant’s case.” The employer failed to file a timely petition for rehearing and therefore the order became final and res judicata, , ; , ; , ; , .
Murdoch v. Industrial Commission 485 P.2d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Murdoch v. Industrial Commission 485 P.2d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Kuchinski v. Industrial Commission, 11 Ariz.App.
Meva Corporation v. Industrial Commission 485 P.2d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Meva Corporation v. Industrial Commission 485 P.2d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
*24 The Arizona, , , made it clear that there is no magic in the word “award.” Any formal written document in a matter adjudicating the right of a workman which document was executed by the Commissioners of The Arizona Industrial
Ruth v. Industrial Commission 483 P.2d 65 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Ruth v. Industrial Commission 483 P.2d 65 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Although designated as an “order” the Commission action was an “award.”
Colasacco v. Industrial Commission 484 P.2d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Colasacco v. Industrial Commission 484 P.2d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Bearden v. Industrial Commission 483 P.2d 568 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Bearden v. Industrial Commission 483 P.2d 568 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971