Cited by

Comm’n, (citing cases), weighing and resolving any conflicting 6 MILLIGAN v. ARGONAUT MIDWEST INS/LUSA HOLDINGS Decision of the Court evidence, see Stainless Specialty Mfg.

Comm’n, –9 (1989) (requiring the ALJ to make necessary factual findings, resolve conflicts in the evidence, and provide a basis for a reviewing court to evaluate its legal analysis).

Comm’n, (courts will vacate an ALJ’s decision if the factual basis for conclusions is not evident).

Comm’n, –9 (1989); see also Aguirre v. Indus.

Comm’n of Ariz., (the reviewing court must be able to determine the factual basis for, and the legal propriety of, the conclusions from a decision); Osborne v. Ariz. Med.

compensable nature of her injury in March 2017.” The ALJ then determined that Pate failed to establish she sustained a compensable injury on April 26, 2015, explaining that Theiler’s opinion on causation was “most probably correct and well-founded.” In her request for review Pate asserted the ALJ needed to make a factual finding regarding her credibility

He argues the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) which requires an ALJ to make findings that are specific enough to enable proper judicial review of the award.

Comm’n, (citing Perry v. Indus.

Comm’n, (citing Perry v. Indus.

Comm'n, 9 (1989) (vacating decision in which Commission merely "set forth the ultimate legal conclusion" after "quoting some testimony and citing general principles of workers' compensation law").

Comm’n, (citation omitted).

Comm'n, the ALJ is not required to make specific findings on every issue so long as she resolves the ultimate issues in the case.

Comm’n, (citing Perry v. Indus.