Legal Opinion

Van Sickle v. Industrial Commission

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided December 5, 1978No. 1 CA-IC 1747PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

NELSON, Judge.

The primary question presented in this Special Action — Industrial Commission is whether successive otherwise scheduled injuries to the same anatomical site must be considered unscheduled when they all become stationary simultaneously.

The factual posture of the case raises additional questions, including the hearing officer’s jurisdiction to hear one of the claims, thereby necessitating an extensive recitation of the facts.

The claimant, Ronnie Van Sickle, was employed by Swengel-Robbins, a contracting firm, at all times pertinent to this action. On October 7, 1973, while…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Ossic v. Verde Central MinesArizona Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Ronquillo v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1971
  3. Caganich v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1972
  4. Bates & Springer of Arizona, Inc. v. FriermoodArizona Supreme Court · 1973
  5. Morrison-Knudsen Co. v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1977

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Far North Sanitation, Inc. v. Alaska Public Utilities CommissionAlaska Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Calixto v. Industrial Commission of ArizonaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1980
  3. Noble v. Industrial Com'n of ArizonaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1984
  4. Pineda v. Grande Drilling Corp.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 1991
  5. Reddel v. Industrial Commission of ArizonaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1981

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API