Legal Opinion

Putz v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided August 26, 2002No. 1 CA-IC 01-0103PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

HALL, Judge.

¶ 1 In this special action, petitioner employer Mike and Pat Putz, husband and wife, dba Northern Construction, request that we set aside an Industrial Commission award for compensable claim. Northern Construction asserts that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred in determining that it was an employer subject to Arizona’s Workers’ Compensation Act (“Act”), Ariz.Rev.Stat. (“A.R.S.”) §§ 23-901 through -1091. Because we conclude that Northern Construction does not “regularly employ” any workers, see A.R.S. § 23-902(A) (1996), and is therefore not an employer covered by…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp. v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1927
  2. Nicholson v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1953
  3. Marshall v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1945
  4. Stulce v. SALT RIVER PROJECT AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENT AND POWER DISTRICTCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1999
  5. Kaibab Industries v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2000

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Simon Seeding & Sod, Inc. v. Dubuque Human Rights Commission and Jermaine StapletonSupreme Court of Iowa · 2017
  2. Patches v. Industrial Com'n of Ariz.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2009
  3. Aaa Cab Service Inc. v. Kerri S. Way, Special Fund division/no Insurance SectionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2006
  4. Komalestewa v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2004
  5. Special Events Service, Inc. and Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Roberto DominguezCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2011

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

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

Powered by the Exa API