Pacific Employers Insurance v. Industrial Commission

2 Citing cases

  1. Baudanza v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona

    720 P.2d 110 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 5 times
    Acknowledging that claimants are entitled only to reasonably required benefits and noting that disputes over entitlement are to be resolved by Industrial Commission administrative law judge

    (Emphasis supplied). The Court of Appeals in Pac. Emp. Ins. Co. v. Indus. Com'n of Ariz., 133 Ariz. 408 (App.), 652 P.2d 147 (1982), was faced with a very similar factual situation as exists in the instant case. The Court observed that when an employee takes the course of action that the applicant did in the instant case the question arises:

  2. Klenk v. the Med. Center of Delaware

    C. A. No. 07A-03-011 MJB (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 30, 2008)   Cited 1 times

    Appellant contends that Appellee may still be liable for the surgery's consequences if Appellant's "decision to undergo surgery was reasonable under all circumstances."Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona, 652 P.2d 147, 149 (Ariz.App. 1982). After considering the submissions of the parties and the applicable legal standards, the Court finds that there is substantial evidence to support the finding of fact that the surgery was not necessary and reasonable.