Legal Opinion

Special Fund Division v. Industrial Commission

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided May 29, 1992No. 2 CA-IC 91-0061, 2 CA-IC 91-0062PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

FERNANDEZ, Presiding Judge.

Sean Reeder, the claimant in this workers’ compensation case, filed two claims for an injury he suffered, in effect contending that he had two employers at the same time. The administrative law judge (AU) found that both Brad’s Custom Roofing, Inc. and petitioner Larry London were Reeder’s employers for purposes of workers’ compensation and that they should be jointly responsible for his benefits. Brad’s did not contest the finding and is not a party to this special action. The sole issue before us, then, is the Special Fund’s contention that the AU erred in…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Perry v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Butler v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1937
  3. Young v. Environmental Air Products, Inc.Arizona Supreme Court · 1983
  4. Home Insurance v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1979
  5. Anton v. Industrial Commission of ArizonaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1984

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Putz v. Industrial Com'n of ArizonaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2002
  2. Osman Home Improvement v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Utah · 1998
  3. Vance International v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1998
  4. Faraghar v. Industrial Commission of ArizonaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1995
  5. Pallen v. United Parcel Service General Services Co.District Court, D. Oregon · 1998

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

Powered by the Exa API