Stemkowski v. Industrial Commission
Court of Appeals of Arizona
1Opinion of the Court
HAIRE, Chief Judge, Division 1.
Two questions are raised by petitioner on this review of an award entered in a workmen’s compensation proceeding. Petitioner first contends that the respondent Commission’s “Notice of Average Monthly Wage” determination is absolutely null and void, and therefore subject to attack by petitioner at this time, notwithstanding her admitted failure to timely request a hear ing within 60 days as required by A.R.S. § 23-947. In the event that this Court determines that the Commission’s “Notice of Average Monthly Wage” was not a nullity, then petitioner further contends…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Parsons v. Bekins FreightArizona Supreme Court · 1972
- Hunt v. CampbellArizona Supreme Court · 1917
- Chavez v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1974
- Janis v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1974
- Kleinsmith v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1976
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Holler v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZ.Arizona Supreme Court · 1984
- Blickenstaff v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONACourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1977
- Edmunds v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1980
- Holler v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZ.Arizona Supreme Court · 1984
- Holler v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZ.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1983
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.