Estrada v. Industrial Commission

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Estrada v. Industrial Commission

464 P.2d 973, 11 Ariz. App. 386, 1970 Ariz. App. LEXIS 500

CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona

DecidedFebruary 11, 1970

DocketNo. 1 CA-IC 249

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 464 P.2d 973 (Estrada v. Industrial Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Estrada v. Industrial Commission, 464 P.2d 973, 11 Ariz. App. 386, 1970 Ariz. App. LEXIS 500 (Ark. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

DONOFRIO, Presiding Judge.

Our opinion in this case, Estrada v. Industrial Commission, 10 Ariz.App. 580, 461 P.2d 88, was filed November 13, 1969. Motions for rehearing and objections thereto have been considered by this Court.

We feel that the opinion contained the same misleading statements as originally set forth in Sims v. Industrial Commission, 10 Ariz.App. 574, 460 P.2d 1003 (1969), which opinion we have modified this day in the opinion upon rehearing, Sims v. Industrial Commission, 11 Ariz.App. 385, 464 P.2d 972 (1969). In this case we feel that the Commission correctly determined from the evidence before it that the petitioner did not suffer a permanent dis- ■ ability as a result of the industrial injury at the time of the award. Thus, petitionér in this case in the future in order to reopen his case pursuant to § 23-1044, subsec. C must show that he suffers a new, additional, or previously undiscovered disability related to his industrial injury. With this correction, the decision of the Court in the case of Estrada v. Industrial Commission, supra, is affirmed and the motion for rehearing denied.

CAMERON, J., and TANG, Judge of Superior Court, concur.

NOTE: Judge HENRY S. STEVENS having requested that he be relieved from consideration of this matter, Judge THOMAS TANG was called to sit in his stead and participate in the determination of this decision.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DONOFRIO, Presiding Judge.

Our opinion in this case, Estrada v. Industrial Commission, 10 Ariz.App. 580, 461 P.2d 88, was filed November 13, 1969. Motions for rehearing and objections thereto have been considered by this Court.

We feel that the opinion contained the same misleading statements as originally set forth in Sims v. Industrial Commission, 10 Ariz.App. 574, 460 P.2d 1003 (1969), which opinion we have modified this day in the opinion upon rehearing, Sims v. Industrial Commission, 11 Ariz.App. 385, 464 P.2d 972 (1969). In this case we feel that the Commission correctly determined from the evidence before it that the petitioner did not suffer a permanent dis- ■ ability as a result of the industrial injury at the time of the award. Thus, petitionér in this case in the future in order to reopen his case pursuant to § 23-1044, subsec. C must show that he suffers a new, additional, or previously undiscovered disability related to his industrial injury. With this correction, the decision of the Court in the case of Estrada v. Industrial Commission, supra, is affirmed and the motion for rehearing denied.

CAMERON, J., and TANG, Judge of Superior Court, concur.

NOTE: Judge HENRY S. STEVENS having requested that he be relieved from consideration of this matter, Judge THOMAS TANG was called to sit in his stead and participate in the determination of this decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

464 P.2d 973, 11 Ariz. App. 386, 1970 Ariz. App. LEXIS 500, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estrada-v-industrial-commission-arizctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack