Legal Opinion · Dissent

Brooks v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZONA

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided February 24, 1983No. 1 CA-IC 2447Published

1DissentContreras, Chief Judge

The majority, in affirming this award, has concluded that the administrative law judge’s findings that the workers’ death and injuries were not compensable because of the “going and coming” rule is supported by the law and by the record. I strongly disagree. Petitioners have posited several exceptions to the “going and coming” rule which the majority has designated as (1) the travel time exception, (2) the substantial benefits exception, and (3) the special hazards exception. In my opinion, both the law and the record support the “substantial benefits” exception to the going and coming rule.…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Jensen v. Manning & Brown, Inc.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1947
  2. Serrano v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1953
  3. Nelson v. Industrial Com'n of ArizonaArizona Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Ebasco Services, Inc. v. BajbekArizona Supreme Court · 1955
  5. Fisher Contracting Co. v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1976

5 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