Legal Opinion
Lasiter v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona
Arizona Supreme Court
Decided October 15, 1992No. CV-90-0410-PRPublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
FELDMAN, Chief Justice.
The question presented in this workers’ compensation case is whether the notice requirement of A.R.S. § 23-1062(A) precludes an injured employee from receiving medical benefits for the care reasonably required as a result of an industrial injury because the employee did not notify the carrier that she was to receive specific medical care at a given time. We granted review to clarify the law on this issue of statewide importance. See Rule 23(c)(4), Ariz.R.Civ.App.P., 17B A.R.S. We have jurisdiction under Ariz. Const, art. 6, § 5(3) and A.R.S. § 12-120.24.
FACTS AND…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Terry Grantham Co. v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1987
- McCoy v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1966
- Marriott Corp. v. Industrial Com'n of ArizonaArizona Supreme Court · 1985
- Gullick v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1963
- Industrial Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Diaz v. Magma Copper Co.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1997
- Bayless v. Industrial Com'n of ArizonaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1993
- Special Fund Division v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1995
- City of Flagstaff v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2015
- Lasiter v. Industrial Com'n of ArizonaArizona Supreme Court · 1992
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.