Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Bedwell v. Industrial Commission, 454 P.2d 985.

126 citing documents.

Casson v. Industrial Commission 539 P.2d 189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
of Arizona in a light most favorable to sustaining the award, , ; resolves all conflicts in favor of upholding the award, , and will not disturb an award if it is reasonably supported by the evidence, In re Estate of *387 Bedwell, , we still must set aside this award.
Terrell v. Industrial Commission 539 P.2d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Perry v. Industrial Commission 539 P.2d 178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Terrell v. Industrial Commission 539 P.2d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
That it is fundamental the applicant has the burden of proof in establishing the essential elements of his claim and *392 his entitlement to further benefits; , ; that it is further fundamental that when a ‘medical’ reopening is sought, as here, the applicant has the burden of establishing the existence of a new, additional, or previously undiscovered (physical) condition and that said condition is causally related to the subject episode and said burden
Bliven v. Industrial Commission 535 P.2d 1309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Bliven v. Industrial Commission 535 P.2d 1309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Hazelton v. Industrial Commission 530 P.2d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Hazelton v. Industrial Commission 530 P.2d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Figueroa v. Industrial Commission 529 P.2d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Figueroa v. Industrial Commission 529 P.2d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
that it must appear that the evidence was such that, as a matter of law, the award of the commission cannot be sustained because there is no reasonable basis in the evidence upon which the commission could have reached its conclusion.”
Carranza v. Industrial Commission 529 P.2d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Carranza v. Industrial Commission 529 P.2d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Toler v. Industrial Commission 527 P.2d 767 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Toler v. Industrial Commission 527 P.2d 767 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Nye v. Industrial Commission, 5 Ariz.App.
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
The test for appellate review of an Industrial Commission award as set out by the Arizona Supreme Court in , is that “(I)t must appear that the evidence was such that, as a matter of law, the award of the commission cannot be sustained because there is no reasonable basis in the evidence upon which the commission could have reached its conclusion.” An industrial injury need not be the sole cau
Goldstein v. Industrial Commission 526 P.2d 1274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Goldstein v. Industrial Commission 526 P.2d 1274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
In making this determination, the evidence will be viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the Commission’s award
Priedigkeit v. Industrial Commission 514 P.2d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Priedigkeit v. Industrial Commission 514 P.2d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
In our opinion once the issue of failure to comply with the one year filing requirement is properly raised, the claimant, in accordance with his burden of establishing all elements of his claim ( , ) would have the burden of establishing that he in fact filed his claim within the one year period.
Brown v. Industrial Commission 513 P.2d 1369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Brown v. Industrial Commission 513 P.2d 1369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Spears v. Industrial Commission 513 P.2d 695 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Spears v. Industrial Commission 513 P.2d 695 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
A I do.” In light of the law that the burden of proof of each element of the claim is upon the petitioner, , that the physical condition of the injured employee and the causal relationship of the accident to such condition can only be determined by expert medical evidence if the result of the accident is not one that is clearly apparent to the layman, , 38
Damron v. Industrial Commission 512 P.2d 851 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Damron v. Industrial Commission 512 P.2d 851 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
In light of the law that the burden of proof of each element of the claim is upon the petitioner, , that we must consider all evidence in a light most favorable to sustaining the findings and award of the Commission if reasonably supported by the evidence, , and that we are bound by such medical expert testimony in cases of
Marquez v. Industrial Commission 499 P.2d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Marquez v. Industrial Commission 499 P.2d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Employers Mut. L. Ins. Co. of Wis. v. Indus. Com'n 498 P.2d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Employers Mutual Liability Insurance v. Industrial Commission 498 P.2d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Employers Mut. L. Ins. Co. of Wis. v. Indus. Com'n 498 P.2d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Employers Mutual Liability Insurance v. Industrial Commission 498 P.2d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Castillo v. Industrial Commission 498 P.2d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Castillo v. Industrial Commission 498 P.2d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
said that it is the burden of the applicant to show affirmatively all the material elements necessary to sustain an award, and, “.
Kay v. Industrial Commission 496 P.2d 875 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Kay v. Industrial Commission 496 P.2d 875 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
” In Re Estate of Bedwell (Bedwell v. Industrial Commission)
Lewis v. Industrial Commission 496 P.2d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Lewis v. Industrial Commission 496 P.2d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Holbrook v. Industrial Commission 495 P.2d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Holbrook v. Industrial Commission 495 P.2d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
said that it is the burden of the applicant to show affirmatively all the material elements necessary to sustain an award, and, “.
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
Peret v. Industrial Commission, 13 Ariz.App.
Micucci v. Industrial Commission 494 P.2d 1324 Ariz. 1972
Micucci v. Industrial Commission 494 P.2d 1324 Ariz. 1972
Olivas v. Industrial Commission 494 P.2d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Olivas v. Industrial Commission 494 P.2d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Rutledge v. Industrial Commission 492 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1972
Rutledge v. Industrial Commission 492 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1972
Breeding v. Industrial Commission, 14 Ariz.App.
Micucci v. Industrial Commission 492 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Micucci v. Industrial Commission 492 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972