Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State Compensation Fund v. Nelson, 737 P.2d 1088.

36 citing documents.

Greer v. Travelers Property Casualty Co. 56 P.3d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Greer v. Travelers Property Casualty Co. 56 P.3d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
(holding that “the ‘amount actually collectable’ does not include interest accrued on the recovery prior to disbursement.”); cf. Lou Grubb Chevrolet v. Indus.
Rowland v. Great States Insurance 20 P.3d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Rowland v. Great States Insurance 20 P.3d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
¶ 17 Furthermore, our supreme court has interpreted the language in § 23-1023(0 to mean that the lien applies only “ ‘to the extent of the benefits the employer is required by law to provide.’ ” , quoting Chevron Chem.
State Compensation Fund v. Superior Court 948 P.2d 499 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State Compensation Fund v. Superior Court 948 P.2d 499 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Special Fund Division v. Industrial Commission 909 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Special Fund Division v. Industrial Commission 909 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Carter v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 893 P.2d 1291 Ariz. 1995
Carter v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 893 P.2d 1291 Ariz. 1995
which held that a carrier’s lien rights attach when the employee “comes into possession” of the amount actually collectable.
Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Commission 897 P.2d 707 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Commission 897 P.2d 707 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Special Fund Division v. Industrial Commission 897 P.2d 643 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Special Fund Division v. Industrial Commission 897 P.2d 643 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Salt River Project/Bechtel Corp. v. Industrial Commission 877 P.2d 1336 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Salt River Project/Bechtel Corp. v. Industrial Commission 877 P.2d 1336 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Marron v. Industrial Commission 862 P.2d 888 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Marron v. Industrial Commission 862 P.2d 888 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
707 [737] P.2d 1088, 1091 (1987).
Velez v. Industrial Commission 848 P.2d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Velez v. Industrial Commission 848 P.2d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State Compensation Fund v. Ireland 851 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State Compensation Fund v. Ireland 851 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
2 , in which the court stated that the compensation carrier’s lien attaches when the beneficiary comes into possession of “ ‘the amount actually collectable.’ ” In this context, the word “possession” means not that one physically has something but that one has power or control over it.
Fry's Food Stores v. Industrial Commission 845 P.2d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Fry's Food Stores v. Industrial Commission 845 P.2d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Apache County 831 P.2d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Apache County 831 P.2d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Pima County Juvenile Appeal No. 74802-2
Martinez v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 812 P.2d 1125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Martinez v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 812 P.2d 1125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court 812 P.2d 985 Ariz. 1991
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court 812 P.2d 985 Ariz. 1991
State v. Takacs 819 P.2d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Takacs 819 P.2d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Marsoner v. Pima County 803 P.2d 897 Ariz. 1991
Marsoner v. Pima County 803 P.2d 897 Ariz. 1991
Carrow Co. v. Lusby 804 P.2d 747 Ariz. 1990
Carrow Co. v. Lusby 804 P.2d 747 Ariz. 1990