14 Arizona opinions name it 1 courts 2009–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Meva Corporation v. Industrial Commissiongreen2 sentences2011Comm'n of Ariz., 135 Ariz. 71, 73 , 659 P.2d 30, 32 (1983) (exercising special action jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-948); Meva, 15 Ariz. App. at 24 , 485 P.2d at 848 (interlocutory ruling in ICA claim proceeding reviewable pursuant to § 23-951). 2011Comm'n of Ariz., 135 Ariz. 71, 73 , 659 P.2d 30, 32 (1983) (exercising special action jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-948); Meva, 15 Ariz. App. at 24 , 485 P.2d at 848 (interlocutory ruling in ICA claim proceeding reviewable pursuant to § 23-951). | 2 | 2 |
Miceli v. Industrial Com'n of Arizonagreen2 sentences2011Comm'n of Ariz., 135 Ariz. 71, 73 , 659 P.2d 30, 32 (1983) (exercising special action jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-948); Meva, 15 Ariz. App. at 24 , 485 P.2d at 848 (interlocutory ruling in ICA claim proceeding reviewable pursuant to § 23-951). 2011Comm'n of Ariz., 135 Ariz. 71, 73 , 659 P.2d 30, 32 (1983) (exercising special action jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-948); Meva, 15 Ariz. App. at 24 , 485 P.2d at 848 (interlocutory ruling in ICA claim proceeding reviewable pursuant to § 23-951). | 2 | 2 |
Ohlmaier v. Industrial Com'n of Arizonagreen2 sentences2023Comm’n, 161 Ariz. 113, 117 (1989) (noting that the objective of an ICA hearing is substantial justice). 2023Comm’n, 161 Ariz. 113, 117 (1989) (noting that the objective of an ICA hearing is substantial justice). | 1 | 1 |
Lovitch v. Industrial Commissiongreen2 sentences2020Comm'n, 202 Ariz. 102, 105, ¶ 16 (App. 2002). ¶7 The ICA hearing process is governed by statute and administrative rule. 2020Comm'n, 202 Ariz. 102, 105, ¶ 16 (App. 2002). ¶7 The ICA hearing process is governed by statute and administrative rule. | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Industrial Commissiongreen2 sentences2015See id. at 254 , 741 P.2d at 1232 . ¶9 The ALJ determined that Flores twice failed to call the defense lawyer or appear for his deposition, even after being ordered to attend the August deposition, and that Flores was unable to provide a timely excuse his for refusal to appear. 2015See id. at 254 , 741 P.2d at 1232 . ¶9 The ALJ determined that Flores twice failed to call the defense lawyer or appear for his deposition, even after being ordered to attend the August deposition, and that Flores was unable to provide a timely excuse his for refusal to appear. | 1 | 1 |
Hughes v. Industrial Commissiongreen2 sentences2015Comm’n, 188 Ariz. 150, 152 , 933 P.2d 1218, 1220 (App. 1996) (“As a general rule, an administrative law judge may deny a timely subpoena request if the expected testimony would not be material or otherwise necessary.”). ¶10 Karry next argues that he was not afforded sufficient time to prepare for cross-examination of Dr. Shapiro, in part because Dr. Shapiro’s report was “untimely filed.” Karry asserts that the ALJ “demanded” Veolia disclose Dr. Shapiro’s medical records review report within two weeks of the initial ICA hearing. 2015Comm’n, 188 Ariz. 150, 152 , 933 P.2d 1218, 1220 (App. 1996) (“As a general rule, an administrative law judge may deny a timely subpoena request if the expected testimony would not be material or otherwise necessary.”). ¶10 Karry next argues that he was not afforded sufficient time to prepare for cross-examination of Dr. Shapiro, in part because Dr. Shapiro’s report was “untimely filed.” Karry asserts that the ALJ “demanded” Veolia disclose Dr. Shapiro’s medical records review report within two weeks of the initial ICA hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Dye v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONAgreen2 sentences2015Id. at 294, 736 P.2d at 387 (emphasis added) (citation omitted). 2015Id. at 294, 736 P.2d at 387 (emphasis added) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Bowen Productions, Inc. v. Frenchgreen2 sentences2014“An abuse of discretion occurs where the court’s reasons for its actions are clearly untenable, legally incorrect, or amount to a denial of justice.” Bowen Prod., Inc. v. French, 231 Ariz. 424 , 427 ¶ 9, 296 P.3d 87, 90 (App.2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). ¶ 12 Arizona Administrative Code Rule R20-5-156 establishes a flexible procedure for requesting and granting a continuance of an ICA hearing if a party seeks to introduce additional evidence. 2014“An abuse of discretion occurs where the court’s reasons for its actions are clearly untenable, legally incorrect, or amount to a denial of justice.” Bowen Prod., Inc. v. French, 231 Ariz. 424 , 427 ¶ 9, 296 P.3d 87, 90 (App.2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). ¶ 12 Arizona Administrative Code Rule R20-5-156 establishes a flexible procedure for requesting and granting a continuance of an ICA hearing if a party seeks to introduce additional evidence. | 1 | 1 |
Gordon v. Industrial Commissiongreen2 sentences2014Comm’n, 23 Ariz. App. 457, 460 , 533 P.2d 1194, 1197 (1975). 2014Comm’n, 23 Ariz. App. 457, 460 , 533 P.2d 1194, 1197 (1975). | 1 | 1 |
Aldrich v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONAgreen2 sentences2009Comm’n, 176 Ariz. 301, 306-07 , 860 P.2d 1354, 1359-60 (App.1993) (ICA carrier’s acceptance of a claim triggers claim preclusion and thus bars relitigation of the elements of a compensable claim at a subsequent ICA claim stage). 30 Accordingly, although the superior court informed the jury it was to accept as true that Mendoza claimed she had suffered an injury to her right arm while working for McDonald’s on June 3, 1997, and informed the jury about the compensability rulings made by the administrative law judges, the court’s instruction did not direct the jury to accept as true the factual f 2009Comm’n, 176 Ariz. 301, 306-07 , 860 P.2d 1354, 1359-60 (App.1993) (ICA carrier’s acceptance of a claim triggers claim preclusion and thus bars relitigation of the elements of a compensable claim at a subsequent ICA claim stage). 30 Accordingly, although the superior court informed the jury it was to accept as true that Mendoza claimed she had suffered an injury to her right arm while working for McDonald’s on June 3, 1997, and informed the jury about the compensability rulings made by the administrative law judges, the court’s instruction did not direct the jury to accept as true the factual f | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Whyte v. Industrial Commission
green
1 sentence2020Id. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Perry v. Industrial Commission of Arizona
green
2 sentences2016Perry protested, and at the ICA hearing, his doctor opined that Perry sustained an acute stress fracture of the pars interarticularis that had caused symptomatic spondylolisthesis. 8 Perry, 154 Ariz. at 227 , 741 P.2d at 694 . 2016Perry protested, and at the ICA hearing, his doctor opined that Perry sustained an acute stress fracture of the pars interarticularis that had caused symptomatic spondylolisthesis. 8 Perry, 154 Ariz. at 227 , 741 P.2d at 694 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Bernard v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences2014Id. ¶12 The claimant requested an ICA hearing on the validity of the NCS, which had both accepted and terminated her claim, and on the denial of her petition to reopen. 2014Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Carbajal v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA
green
2 sentences2009Id. at 580-81, ¶ 10 , 190 P.3d at 739-40 . 2009Id. at 580-81, ¶ 10 , 190 P.3d at 739-40 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.