Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Post v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA, 770 P.2d 308.

94 citing documents.

Buckman v. roadsafe/zurich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Buckman v. roadsafe/zurich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶5 P.2d 308 (1989), the Arizona Supreme Court reassessed the specificity necessary for a legally sufficient award.
Linda Bell v. Ica/ Maricopa Cty/ Pinnacle Risk 341 P.3d 1149 Ariz. 2015
Linda Bell v. Ica/ Maricopa Cty/ Pinnacle Risk 341 P.3d 1149 Ariz. 2015
Comm’n, (“To prevent appellate courts from having to assume a factfinder role, an [ALJ] must find on all the case’s material issues.
Jimenez v. erickson/indemnity Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Jimenez v. erickson/indemnity Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Svienty v. Corrpro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Svienty v. Corrpro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Comm’n, P.2d 308 (1989).
Fonseca v. Dole fresh/dole Food Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Fonseca v. Dole fresh/dole Food Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Comm’n, (citing Perry v. Indus.
O'Connor v. Arizona Medical Board Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
O'Connor v. Arizona Medical Board Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
3 O’CONNOR v. ARIZONA MEDICAL BOARD Decision of the Court DISCUSSION I. Sufficiency of the Board’s Findings and its Resolution of Conflicting Testimony in Cases 1 and 2 ¶8 P.2d 308 (1989), O’Connor first argues the Board failed to make sufficient factual findings.
Calder v. interstate/zurich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Calder v. interstate/zurich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Sun Valley Masonry, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 167 P.3d 719 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Sun Valley Masonry, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 167 P.3d 719 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Mace v. Industrial Commission 62 P.3d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
MacE v. Tremco Liberty Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
MacE v. Tremco Liberty Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
P.2d 308 (1989), he also argues the ALJ’ s findings are insufficient to allow appellate review.
Mace v. Industrial Commission 62 P.3d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
he also argues the ALJ’s findings are insufficient to allow appellate review.
Douglas Auto & Equipment v. State Comp fund/zazueta 45 P.3d 342 Ariz. 2002
Douglas Auto & Equipment v. State Comp fund/zazueta 45 P.3d 342 Ariz. 2002
Comm’n, P.2d 308 (1989), and set aside the award.
Douglas Auto & Equipment v. Industrial Commission 21 P.3d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Douglas Auto & Equipment v. Industrial Commission 21 P.3d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Petitioners requested administrative review, arguing that the ALJ had not made a
Division of Occupational Safety & Health of the Industrial Commission v. Chuck Westenburg Concrete Contractors, Inc. 972 P.2d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Division of Occupational Safety & Health of the Industrial Commission v. Chuck Westenburg Concrete Contractors, Inc. 972 P.2d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
¶ 37 ADOSH argues that Post v. Industrial Comm’n, , supports its argument that the review board’s findings and order is legally insufficient.
Shelby School v. Arizona State Board of Education 962 P.2d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Shelby School v. Arizona State Board of Education 962 P.2d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Post v. Industrial Comm’n, -9 , -13 (1989).
Cohn v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 874 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1994
Cohn v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 874 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1994
A reviewing court cannot assume that an ALJ has considered a matter absent explicit findings, see Post v. Industrial Comm’n, , (administrative law judge is required to make «pppifíp findings on all material issues'), unless it can infer that the ALJ necessarily reached the issue.
Hester v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 875 P.2d 820 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Hester v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 875 P.2d 820 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Insufficient Findings On review, claimant first asserts that the finding is insufficient, citing Post v. Industrial Comm’n
Miller v. BD. OF SUP'RS OF PINAL CTY. 855 P.2d 1357 Ariz. 1993
Miller v. Board of Supervisors 855 P.2d 1357 Ariz. 1993
Miller v. BD. OF SUP'RS OF PINAL CTY. 855 P.2d 1357 Ariz. 1993
Miller v. Board of Supervisors 855 P.2d 1357 Ariz. 1993
A trial court’s findings of fact satisfy Arizona law if they are “pertinent to the issues and comprehensive enough to provide a basis for the decision.” , see also Post v. Industrial Comm’n
Growers Co. v. Industrial Commission 842 P.2d 1322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Growers Co. v. Industrial Commission 842 P.2d 1322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Estate of Plemons v. Industrial Commission 806 P.2d 889 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Estate of Plemons v. Industrial Commission 806 P.2d 889 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
On review, petitioner contends that the AU erred in failing to consider and apply the unexplained death presumption
Konichek v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 806 P.2d 885 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Konichek v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 806 P.2d 885 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Petitioner also questions whether the AU’s
Pinetop Truck & Equipment Supply v. Industrial Commission 776 P.2d 356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Pinetop Truck & Equipment Supply v. Industrial Commission 776 P.2d 356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
See Post v. Industrial Comm’n

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by