Legal Opinion

Jaimes v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided February 27, 1990No. 1 CA-IC 89-029PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

SHELLEY, Judge.

This is a special action review of an Industrial Commission award denying com-pensability. The administrative law judge (judge) found that the accident resulted from horseplay, and concluded that it had occurred outside the course of employment because “there seems to have been repeated misconduct ■ particularly involving dangerous machinery and past warn-ings____”■ We must decide whether the horseplay constituted an insubstantial deviation as a matter of law. Because the deviation was insubstantial, we set aside the award.

Petitioner employee (claimant) was a golf course…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. American Textile Manufacturers Institute, Inc. v. DonovanSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  2. Anton v. Industrial Commission of ArizonaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1984
  3. Matter of Industrial Comr. (Siguin) v. McCarthyNew York Court of Appeals · 1946
  4. Pierce v. Casas Adobes Baptist ChurchArizona Supreme Court · 1989
  5. Finnegan v. Industrial Com'n of ArizonaArizona Supreme Court · 1988

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Mercy Healthcare Arizona, Inc. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment SystemCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1994
  2. Lou Grubb Chevrolet, Inc. v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1992
  3. Woods v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 1992
  4. Mustard v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1990
  5. Schuck & Sons Construction v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1998

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

Powered by the Exa API