1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. Ariz.
  4. 134 Ariz.
  5. 134 Ariz. 369 (1982)
 

NELSON v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA

No. 15943-PR.

134 Ariz. 369 (1982)

656 P.2d 1230

Marguerite Van NELSON, widow, Charles E. Nelson, deceased, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent, Adams Insulation, Inc., Respondent Employer, State Compensation Fund, Respondent Carrier. Marguerite Van NELSON, widow, Charles E. Nelson, deceased, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent, Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp., Respondent Employer, State Compensation Fund, Respondent Carrier. Marguerite Van NELSON, widow, Charles E. Nelson, deceased, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent, Adams Insulation, Inc., Respondent Employer, Insurance From CNA, Respondent Carrier. Marguerite Van NELSON, widow, Charles E. Nelson, deceased, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent, Fuller Austin Insulation Company, Respondent Employer, State Compensation Fund, Respondent Carrier. Marguerite Van NELSON, widow, Charles E. Nelson, deceased, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent, Arthur G. McKee & Company, Respondent Employer, Crawford and Company, Respondent Carrier.

Supreme Court of Arizona, En Banc.

Rehearing Denied January 5, 1983.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Davis & Eppstein by Philip Hall, Tucson, for petitioner.

Everett, Bury & Moeller by J. Michael Moeller, Tucson, for respondents Arthur G. McKee & Co. and Crawford and Co.

Chandler, Tullar, Udall & Redhair by William J. Augustine, Tucson, for respondents Adams Insulation, Inc. and Insurance From CNA.

Robert K. Park, Chief Counsel State Compensation Fund, Phoenix by George B. Morse, Tucson, for respondents Adams Insulation, Inc., Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp., Fuller Austin Insulation Co. and State Compensation Fund.

Calvin Harris, Chief Counsel, Phoenix, for respondent Indus. Com'n of Arizona.

FELDMAN, Justice.

Petitioner brought a claim for benefits under the occupational disease provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The administrative law judge dismissed the claim on the ground that he had no jurisdiction because the claim had not been timely filed. This ruling was affirmed by an award of the Industrial Commission. The award was affirmed by the court of appeals in a memorandum decision (1 CA-IC 2525...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases