Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 23
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1027 (2026)

Compensation precluded by neglect or refusal of employee to submit to treatment

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

No compensation shall be payable for the death or disability of an employee if his death is caused by, or insofar as his disability may be aggravated, caused or continued by an unreasonable refusal or neglect to submit to or follow any competent or reasonable surgical treatment or medical aid.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1971–2001 · leading case: Keeton v. Indus. Comm'n, 554 P.2d 898 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Keeton v. Indus. Comm'n, 554 P.2d 898 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 17× “Petitioner continued to receive benefits until January 23, 1975, when Motorola issued a Notice of Claim Status pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-1027. The Notice terminated medical and compensation benefits on the basis that petitioner had unreasonably refused to follow competent and…”
Bernhart v. Indus. Comm'n, 26 P.3d 1181 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 10× “” A.R.S. § 23-1027. Concluding that the Commission misapplied these statutes, we set its decision aside.”
Godfrey v. Indus. Comm'n of Arizona, 602 P.2d 821 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 6× “§ 23-1026(E) or A.R.S. § 23-1027, it must apply to the Commission under A.”
Schaeffer Trucking v. Indus. Comm'n, 687 P.2d 933 (Ariz. 1984). · cites it 10× “A.R.S. § 23-1027. Although not in sequence, it would appear that A.”
Arthur G. McKee & Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 537 P.2d 603 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 8× “" A.R.S. § 23-1027: "No compensation shall be payable for the death or disability of an employee if his death is caused by, or insofar as his disability may be aggravated, caused or continued by an unreasonable refusal or neglect to submit to or follow any competent and…”
Savage Welding Supplies v. Indus. Comm'n, 587 P.2d 778 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 4× “ly three aspects of the award the petitioners now dispute: (1) the finding that Pringle’s condition was not stationary if he would consent to surgery and was stationary if he would not; (2) the 60-day allowance of time for Pringle’s written consent to the surgery; and (3) the…”
Bearden v. Indus. Comm'n, 483 P.2d 568 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 2× “Section 23-1027 provides for the forfeiture of the right to compensation under specified circumstances and there is a similar section relating to occupational diseases, being A.”
Velez v. Indus. Comm'n, 848 P.2d 886 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “section 23-1027 and subsection 23-1026(E), not the relationship here.”
Pima Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors v. Indus. Comm'n, 558 P.2d 708 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 2× “Petitioner contends that the termination should have been effective on February 28, 1975, in view of A.R.S. § 23-1027, which limits payment of benefits where the injured worker unreasonably fails to follow prescribed medical treatment.”
Rowe v. Indus. Comm'n, 510 P.2d 388 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 3× “” and in A.R.S. § 23-1027 which reads: “No compensation shall be payable for the death or disability of an employee if his death is caused by, or insofar as his disability may be aggravated, caused or continued by an unreasonable refusal or neglect to submit to or follow any…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.