Glodo v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• reasoning that a claimant’s injury sustained when he or she assaults a co-worker is not self-inflicted as “the outcome is not nearly as predictable as when the claimant slams his fist into a metal freezer door”
• reasoning that a claimant's injury sustained when he or she assaults a co-worker is not self-inflicted as \the outcome is not nearly as predictable as when the claimant slams his fist into a metal freezer door\
• reviewing whether claim was properly denied pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-1021(A) because injury was “purposefully self-inflicted”
• holding 8 L.B. Price Mercantile did not refer to Article 18, Section 8, but to sections 1421 and 1426 of the Revised Code of 1928. 43 Ariz. at 268, 30 P.2d at 495. - 19 - that an employee cannot recover under workers’ compensation if the injury results from an intentional act
• “When discovery occurs and a cause of action accrues are usually 20 and necessarily questions of fact for the jury.”
• by enacting the AEPA, the legislature “defin[ed] the public policy of this 19 state and limit[ed] the situations in which an employee may bring a wrongful termination 20 suit”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).