Pacific Fruit Express v. Industrial Commission
Arizona Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
CAMERON, Justice.
I. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
Isidoro B. Verdugo, claimant, seeks review of a court of appeals’ decision setting aside an award issued by the Industrial Commission of Arizona (Commission) for his hearing loss suffered while an employee of Pacific Fruit Express. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Ariz. Const. art. VI, § 5(3) and A.R.S. § 23-948.
II. ISSUES PRESENTED
The issues presented on this review are
1) Is the 1980 amendment to A.R.S. § 23-1061(A) constitutional?
2) When does the statute of limitations begin to run on a “compensable claim” under A.R.S. § 23-1061(A)?
3) Who carries…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cases cited19 opinions
- English v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1951
- Savich v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1931
- Kennecott Copper Corp. v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1945
- Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1934
- Mead v. American Smelting & Refining CompanyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1965
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Coy v. Dover Corp./Norris DivisionSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1989
- Bayless v. Industrial Com'n of ArizonaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1993
- Douglas Auto & Equipment v. State Comp fund/zazuetaArizona Supreme Court · 2002
- Henry v. Industrial Com'n of ArizonaArizona Supreme Court · 1988
- Ball Mfg. v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1992
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.