Dr. Pepper Co. v. Industrial Commission
Court of Appeals of Arizona
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HAIRE, Chief Judge.
In this review of an Industrial Commission award granting claimant’s petition to reopen, we consider two issues:(1) Did the administrative law judge err in finding that the carrier’s disclaimer of liability for “underlying” degenerative problems applied only to those ' conditions that preceded claimant’s initial industrial injury?(2) Does the successive injury doctrine prohibit reopening when claimant elects not to file a new injury claim though the facts would support either remedy?
The initial industrial injury to claimant’s right knee occurred in March 1979 while…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Pearce Development v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZONAArizona Supreme Court · 1985
- O'Donnell v. Industrial Com'n of ArizonaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1979
- Caganich v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1972
- Pearce Development v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1985
- Dutton v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONACourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1984
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Kaibab Industries v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2000
- A.J. Goulder Electric v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1996
- Espinosa v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONACourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1991
- AJ Goulder Elec. v. INDUS. COM'NCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1996