Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Aitken v. Industrial Commission, 904 P.2d 456.

56 citing documents.

E.H. v. Hon. Slayton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
E.H. v. Hon. Slayton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Comm'n, ("well-settled that the constitutionality of a statute will not be determined in any case, unless such determination is absolutely necessary") (citation omitted); see also Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744, 1755 (2017) ("[W]e ought not to pass on questions of constitutionality .
Twin City Fire Insurance Co. v. Graciela Leija 422 P.3d 1033 Ariz. 2018
Twin City Fire Insurance Co. v. Graciela Leija 422 P.3d 1033 Ariz. 2018
In Aitken v. Industrial Commission, this Court held that the insurance carrier may assert the lien “only to the extent that the compensation benefits paid exceed the [non-party] employer’s proportionate share of the total damages fixed by verdict in the [third-party] action.”
Twin City v. Leija Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Twin City v. Leija Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Engler v. Gulf Interstate Engineering, Inc. 258 P.3d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Engler v. Gulf Interstate Engineering, Inc. 258 P.3d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Comm’n, , (recognizing that “we have consistently applied workers’ compensation laws liberally, remedially, and in a manner insuring that injured employees receive maximum available benefits,” and “[t]he overriding theme of the system, as evidenced by our constitution, statutes, and case law, has
Bridgestone Retail Tire Operations v. Industrial Commission 258 P.3d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Bridgestone Retail Tire Operations v. Industrial Commission 258 P.3d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Carbajal v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 190 P.3d 737 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Lane v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 178 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Lane v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 178 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
And, as noted above, given that we must apply “workers’ compensation laws liberally, remedially, and in a manner ensuring that injured employees receive maximum available benefits,” , we decline to approve such a limit in coverage in the absence of any statutory authority for doing so.
Renee Antonio Fragoso v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Renee Antonio Fragoso v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
We endeavor to harmonize statutes and court rules with the Arizona Constitution, see Aitken v. Industrial 8 Commission, avoiding any unconstitutional construction.
State of Arizona v. Jesus Antonio Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Jesus Antonio Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Grammatico v. Industrial Commission 90 P.3d 211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Grammatico v. Industrial Commission 90 P.3d 211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Comm’n of Ariz., , (“[I]n the context of efficiently and expeditiously providing compensation to injured workers, which is what the [workers’ compensation] system is designed to do, fault remains no consideration.”).
State v. Casey 71 P.3d 351 Ariz. 2003
State v. Casey 71 P.3d 351 Ariz. 2003
LaFaro v. Cahill 56 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
LaFaro v. Cahill 56 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Comm’n, , (recommending deviation from policy of restraint on constitutional evaluation only for “strong reason and under extraordinary circumstances”).
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
Weber v. Tucson Electric Power Co. 47 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Weber v. Tucson Electric Power Co. 47 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
This appeal requires us to decide whether, as TEP contends, it is entitled to recover the full amount of its lien against the settlement or whether, as the trial court ruled
Stout v. State Compensation Fund 44 P.3d 178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Stout v. State Compensation Fund 44 P.3d 178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
¶ 5 After the judgment had become final, the Stouts gave the Fund its first notice of the high/low agreement, the trial, and the judgment, , in which the Arizona Supreme Court declared, “We now hold that a carrier may assert a lien on a third party recovery only to the extent that the compensation benefits paid exceed the employer’s proportionate share of the total damages fixed by verdict in the action.” Id.
Arizona Libertarian Party v. Schmeral 28 P.3d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Arizona Libertarian Party v. Schmeral 28 P.3d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Comm’n, , (admonishing courts to avoid deciding cases on constitutional grounds if possible to do so).
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
¶20 Clearly, one purpose of § 23-1023(C) is “to prevent employees from receiving a double recovery.” Aitken v. Industrial Comm’n
Moretto v. Samaritan Health System 8 P.3d 380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Moretto v. Samaritan Health System 8 P.3d 380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
*198 ¶ 30 The Arizona courts have long construed workers’ compensation laws “liberally, remedially, and in a manner ensuring that injured employees receive maximum available benefits.” Aitken v. Industrial Comm’n
Bohn v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 999 P.2d 180 Ariz. 2000
Stout v. State Compensation Fund 3 P.3d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Stout v. State Compensation Fund 3 P.3d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
The court further decided that an offset against the Fund’s , does not apply to settlements because no procedure to determine an equitable apportionment exists except for a trial that goes to a verdict.
Ford v. State 979 P.2d 10 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Ford v. State 979 P.2d 10 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
See Aitken v. Industrial Comm’n
Larsen v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A. 978 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Larsen v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A. 978 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
We note that the parties stipulated, and the jury was informed, that "Kimberly Griesmer's medical bills have been and will be paid by the Arizona State Workers Compensation Fund,” that plaintiff could not sue Pandhi, and that any repayment of medical benefits to the State Compensation Fund would "be reduced by the percentage of fault found against Dr. Pandhi.” , cert.
Merrick v. Lewis 952 P.2d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Merrick v. Lewis 952 P.2d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Aitken v. Industrial Comm’n
Oaks v. McQuiller 955 P.2d 971 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Oaks v. McQuiller 955 P.2d 971 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
We construe workers’ compensation laws “liberally, remedially, and in a manner ensuring that injured employees receive maximum available benefits.” Aitken v. Industrial Comm’n
Sanchez v. City of Tucson 953 P.2d 168 Ariz. 1998
Sanchez v. City of Tucson 953 P.2d 168 Ariz. 1998
§ 12-2506(A); see also Aitken v. Industrial Comm’n of Arizona
Lazarus v. Industrial Commission 947 P.2d 875 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Lazarus v. Industrial Commission 947 P.2d 875 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
4 Although courts should interpret statutes in view of their purpose as well as “ ‘in light of subsequent events,’ ” Aitken v. Industrial Comm’n, , quoting Idaho v. Hodel, 814 F.2d 1288, 1298 (9th Cir.1987), “the judiciary is not the proper branch of government to update complex statutes when legislative decisionmaking is necessary.” West Winds, Inc. v. M.V.