Case ID: ariz-app_23/html/0392-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "STEVENS, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

533 P.2d 700
    Emogene HUNLEY, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Arizona, Respondent, Verkamp's, Respondent Employer, State Compensation Fund, Respondent Carrier.
    No. 1 CA-IC 1081.
    Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department C.
    April 10, 1975.
    Review Granted May 6, 1975.
    Jerome & Gibson, P. C., by D. A. Jerome, Phoenix, for petitioner.
    Edward F. Cummerford, Chief Counsel The Industrial Commission of Arizona, Phoenix, for respondent.
    Robert K. Park, Chief Counsel State Compensation Fund by James B. Long, Phoenix, for respondents employer and carrier.
   SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION

STEVENS, Judge.

This Court filed its opinion in the above-entitled matter on 11 February 1975. 23 Ariz.App. 176, 531 P.2d 552. A timely motion for rehearing and response thereto have been filed. The motion correctly advises the Court that the cases of Mahan v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 14 Ariz.App. 535, 484 P.2d 1064 (1971), and Washburn v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 14 Ariz.App. 479, 484 P.2d 248 (1971), (23 Ariz.App. at 177, 531 P.2d at 553) do not support the principle of law for which they are cited. We acknowledge this error on our part. This does not affect the result.

The motion for rehearing is herewith denied.

NELSON, P. J., and WREN, J., concurring.