Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1101 (2026)

Definition of report

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

23-1101. Definition of report

In this article, unless the context otherwise requires, "report" means the report prescribed by section 23-1102.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases, 1958–1986 · leading case: Alvarado v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 716 P.2d 18 (Ariz. 1986).
Alvarado v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 716 P.2d 18 (Ariz. 1986). · cites it 8× “Concurrently with the pending compensation claim for his ankle injury Alvarado also filed a separate claim for silicosis benefits under the Occupational Disease Disability Law, A.R.S. § 23-1101 et seq. (repealed by Laws 1973 ch.”
Ford v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 703 P.2d 453 (Ariz. 1985). · cites it 2× “When the issue next returned to this court, we held: *517 We conclude that while it is to be recognized that there is authority to the contrary, this state has clearly been committed to the view over many years that the inhalation of poisonous compounds and dust having a…”
Mead v. Am. Smelting & Refining Co., 399 P.2d 694 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1965). · cites it 2× “It is admitted that petitioner’s emphysema is not covered by the Arizona Oc *76 cupational Disease Disability Law, A.R.S. § 23-1101 et seq. It is not one of the “Occupational Diseases” listed in § 23-1102 A.”
Featherman v. Indus. Comm'n, 537 P.2d 922 (Ariz. 1975). · cites it 2× “Silicosis is compensable under Arizona’s Occupational Disease Law, A.R.S. § 23-1101 et seq., under some circumstances.”
Inspiration Consol. Copper Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 335 P.2d 416 (Ariz. 1959). · cites it 4× “By statute, A.R.S. § 23-1101, silicosis when complicated by active pulmonary tuberculosis is presumed to be totally disabling.”
Inspiration Consol. Copper v. Indus. Comm'n, 574 P.2d 478 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 2× “The issues presented on this review of an award of the Industrial Commission are: 1) whether an employee’s widow is entitled to workmen’s compensation benefits when her husband’s death was hastened by a heart condition suffered in the scope of employment but not covered by the…”
Nunez v. Arizona Milling Co., 439 P.2d 834 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1968). · cites it 2× “) or the Occupational Disease Disability Act (A.R.S. § 23-1101 et seq.). Benefits under both acts were denied by the Commission in an “award” which in its findings stated that the applicant had not sustained a “ * * * personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course…”
Begay v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 499 F. Supp. 1317 (D. Ariz. 1980). “From 1943 until 1973, there existed the Workmen's Compensation Law, Ariz.”
Torrez v. Indus. Comm'n, 543 P.2d 1148 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 2× “Even under those decisions, which indicated that silicosis was compensable under the Arizona Workmen’s Compensation Laws, as opposed to the then effective Occupational Disability and Disease Law, A.R.S. §§ 23-1101 et seq., repealed, Chap.”
Dickey v. Indus. Comm'n of Arizona, 320 P.2d 470 (Ariz. 1958). · cites it 2× “By certiorari we are called upon to determine the question of whether the Industrial Commission committed error in denying an award to petitioner Dickey under the Arizona Occupational Disease Disability Act, A.R.S. § 23-1101 et seq. The facts are that Dickey worked underground…”
Globe Indem. Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 535 P.2d 1053 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 4× “In protest thereof, hearings were held in July and September of 1973, and an award was entered in September of 1973, finding that he had a compensable claim for silicosis and that the carrier was liable for benefits provided for under the Act. The award was affirmed by the…”
Marquez v. Indus. Comm'n, 505 P.2d 577 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 2× “…death. The decedent had not worked the requisite number of shifts within the ten year period prior to his death. . A.R.S. § 23-1101 et seq.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1101(5) — 1 case
Solomon v. Indus. Comm'n, 485 P.2d 587 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1971).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.