Vance International v. Industrial Commission
Court of Appeals of Arizona
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
LANKFORD, Presiding Judge.
¶ 1 Petitioner Employer and Petitioner Carrier (collectively “Petitioners”) filed this special action after an Administrative Law Judge (“AL J”) concluded that Petitioner Employer and Respondent Employer jointly employed an injured worker and were both primarily liable for workers’ compensation benefits. Because the ALJ’s findings compel the conclusion that Petitioner Vance did not employ the worker, we set aside the award.
¶ 2 The injured worker sustained injuries in an auto accident while driving a servant of the Saudi Arabian Royal Family (“the Royal…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Home Insurance v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1979
- Central Management Co. v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1989
- Dependable Messenger, Inc. v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1993
- Special Fund Division v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1992
- Faraghar v. Industrial Commission of ArizonaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1995
3Cited by6 opinions
- Tabler v. Industrial Com'n of ArizonaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2002
- T.W.M. Custom Framing v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2000
- Union Light & Power Co. v. District of Columbia Department of Employment ServicesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2002
- Henderson-Jones v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2013
- Danial v. Indus. Comm'n of Ariz.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2019
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.