Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1061 (2026)

Notice of accident; form of notice; claim for compensation; reopening; payment of compensation; notification of injury

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. Notwithstanding section 23-908, subsection E, no claim for compensation shall be valid or enforceable unless the claim is filed with the commission by the employee, or if resulting in death by the parties entitled to compensation, or someone on their behalf, in writing within one year after the injury occurred or the right thereto accrued. The time for filing a compensation claim begins to run when the injury becomes manifest or when the claimant knows or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should know that the claimant has sustained a compensable injury. Except as provided in subsection B or N of this section, neither the commission nor any court shall have jurisdiction to consider a claim that is not timely filed under this subsection, except if the employee or other party entitled to file the claim has delayed in doing so because of justifiable reliance on a material representation by the commission, employer or insurance carrier or if the employee or other party entitled to file the claim is insane or legally incompetent or incapacitated at the time the injury occurs or the right to compensation accrues or during the one-year period thereafter. If the insanity or legal incompetence or incapacity occurs after the one-year period has commenced, the running of the remainder of the one-year period shall be suspended during the period of insanity or legal incompetence or incapacity. If the employee or other party is insane or legally incompetent or incapacitated when the injury occurs or the right to compensation accrues, the one-year period commences to run immediately on the termination of insanity or legal incompetence or incapacity. The commission on receiving a claim shall give notice to the insurance carrier.

B. Failure of an employee or any other party entitled to compensation to file a claim with the commission within one year or to comply with section 23-908 shall not bar a claim if the insurance carrier or employer has commenced payment of compensation benefits under section 23-1044, 23-1045 or 23-1046, except that the payments provided for by section 23-1046, subsection A, paragraph 1 and section 23-1065, subsection A shall not be considered compensation benefits for the purposes of this section.

C. If the commission receives a notification of the injury, the commission shall send a claim form to the employee.

D. The issue of failure to file a claim must be raised at the first hearing on a claim for compensation in respect to the injury or death.

E. Within ten days after receiving notice of an accident, the employer shall inform the employer's insurance carrier and the commission on such forms as may be prescribed by the commission.

F. Each insurance carrier and self-insuring employer shall report to the commission a notice of the first payment of compensation and shall serve on the commission and the employee any denial of a claim, any change in the amount of compensation and the termination of compensation, except that claims for medical, surgical and hospital benefits that are not denied shall be reported to the commission in the form and manner determined by the commission. In all cases where compensation is payable, the insurance carrier or self-insuring employer shall promptly determine the average monthly wage pursuant to section 23-1041. Within thirty days after the payment of the first installment of compensation, the insurance carrier or self-insuring employer shall notify the employee and commission of the average monthly wage of the claimant as calculated, and the basis for such determination. The commission shall then make its own independent determination of the average monthly wage pursuant to section 23-1041. The commission, within thirty days after receipt of such notice, shall notify the employee, employer and insurance carrier of such determination. The amount determined by the commission shall be payable retroactive to the first date of entitlement. The first payment of compensation shall be accompanied by a notice on a form prescribed by the commission stating the manner in which the amount of compensation was determined.

G. Except as otherwise provided by law, the insurance carrier or self-insuring employer shall process and pay compensation and provide medical, surgical and hospital benefits, without the necessity for the making of an award or determination by the commission.

H. On a claim that has been previously accepted, an employee may reopen the claim to secure an increase or rearrangement of compensation or additional benefits by filing with the commission a petition requesting the reopening of the employee's claim on the basis of a new, additional or previously undiscovered temporary or permanent condition, which petition shall be accompanied by a statement from a physician setting forth the physical condition of the employee relating to the claim. A claim shall not be reopened if the initial claim for compensation was previously denied by a notice of claim status or determination by the commission and the notice or determination was allowed to become final and no exception applies under section 23-947 excusing a late filing to request a hearing. A claim shall not be reopened because of increased subjective pain if the pain is not accompanied by a change in objective physical findings. A claim shall not be reopened solely for additional diagnostic or investigative medical tests, but expenses for any reasonable and necessary diagnostic or investigative tests that are causally related to the injury shall be paid by the employer or the employer's insurance carrier. Expenses for reasonable and necessary medical and hospital care and laboratory work shall be paid by the employer or the employer's insurance carrier if the claim is reopened as provided by law and if these expenses are incurred within fifteen days before the date that the petition to reopen is filed. The payment for such reasonable and necessary medical, hospital and laboratory work expense shall be paid for by the employer or the employer's insurance carrier if the claim is reopened as provided by law and if such expenses are incurred within fifteen days before the filing of the petition to reopen. Surgical benefits are not payable for any period before the date of filing a petition to reopen, except that surgical benefits are payable for a period before the date of filing the petition to reopen not to exceed seven days if a bona fide medical emergency precludes the employee from filing a petition to reopen before the surgery. No monetary compensation is payable for any period before the date of filing the petition to reopen.

I. On the filing of a petition to reopen a claim, the commission shall in writing notify the employer's insurance carrier or the self-insuring employer, which shall in writing notify the commission and the employee within twenty-one days after the date of such notice of its acceptance or denial of the petition. The reopened claim shall be processed thereafter in like manner as a new claim.

J. The commission shall investigate and review any claim in which it appears to the commission that the claimant has not been granted the benefits to which such claimant is entitled. If the commission determines that payment or denial of compensation is improper in any way, it shall hold a hearing pursuant to section 23-941 within sixty days after receiving notice of such impropriety. Any claim for temporary partial disability benefits under this subsection must be filed with the commission within two years after the date the claimed entitlement to compensation accrued or within two years after the date on which an award for benefits encompassing the entitlement period becomes final. A claim for temporary partial disability compensation shall be deemed to accrue when the employee knew or with the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known that the insurance carrier, self-insured employer or special fund denied or improperly paid compensation. A claim for temporary partial disability benefits shall not be deemed to have accrued any earlier than September 26, 2008.

K. When there is a dispute as to which employer or insurance carrier is liable for the payment of a compensable claim, the commission, by order, may designate the employer or insurance carrier that shall pay the claim. Payment shall begin within fourteen days after the employer or insurance carrier has been ordered by the commission to commence payment. When a final determination has been made as to which employer or insurance carrier is actually liable, the commission shall direct any necessary monetary adjustment or reimbursement among the parties or insurance carriers involved.

L. On application to the commission and for good cause shown, the commission may direct that a document filed as a claim for compensation benefits be designated as a petition to reopen, effective as of the original date of filing. In like manner on application and good cause shown, the commission may direct that a document filed as a petition to reopen be designated as a claim for compensation benefits, effective as of the original date of filing.

M. If the insurance carrier or self-insurer does not issue a notice of claim status denying the claim within twenty-one days after the date the insurance carrier is notified by the commission of a claim or of a petition to reopen, the insurance carrier shall pay immediately compensation as if the claim were accepted, from the date the insurance carrier is notified by the commission of a claim or petition to reopen until the date on which the insurance carrier issues a notice of claim status denying such claim. Compensation includes medical, surgical and hospital benefits. This section shall not apply to cases involving seven days or less of time lost from work.

N. If an insurance carrier or self-insured employer receives written notification of an injury from an employee who was injured and intends to file a claim for compensation, the insurance carrier or self-insured employer must forward the written notification of the injury and intended claim for compensation to the commission within seven business days and inform the employee of the employee's requirement to file a claim with the commission. The one-year period as prescribed in subsection A of this section is suspended from the date the insurance carrier or self-insured employer received written notification of the injury and intended claim for compensation until the date that the insurance carrier or self-insured employer forwards the written notification to the commission. When the commission receives such notification, the commission must notify the employee of the employee's responsibility to file a claim with the commission pursuant to this section.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 367 cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1960–2026 · leading case: Allen v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 733 P.2d 290 (Ariz. 1987).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Allen v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 733 P.2d 290 (Ariz. 1987). · cites it 61× “§ 23-947 we reiterated, in 1967, our strict interpretation of the filing-of-a-claim requirement imposed by A.R.S. § 23-1061, stating: The statute clearly requires that an application must be filed within one year before a claim can be enforceable.”

Stainless Specialty Mfg. Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 695 P.2d 261 (Ariz. 1985). · cites it 26× “NATURE OF THE REOPENING PROCEDURE The reopening provision of Arizona's Workers' Compensation Act provides in part: An employee may reopen his claim to secure an increase or rearrangement of compensation or additional benefits by filing with the commission a petition requesting…”

Franks v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 718 P.2d 193 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 28× “Franks applied to the Industrial Commission in January, 1981, for special relief under A.R.S. § 23-1061(J). The Industrial Commission refused to allow proceedings under that statute and stated that the matter would be handled in a "routine manner.”

Nelson v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 656 P.2d 1230 (Ariz. 1982). · cites it 30× “Timothy Van Horn was injured and failed to file a claim for compensation under A.R.S. § 23-1061 within the one-year requirement.”

Lasiter v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 839 P.2d 1101 (Ariz. 1992). · cites it 62× “It must be read in conjunction with the immediately preceding section, A.R.S. § 23-1061, which defines "notice" for the universe of situations which requires the payment of compensation.”

Polanco v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 154 P.3d 391 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 8× “The ALJ determined Polanco had failed to demonstrate “objective physical findings of [a] change in [Polanco’s] condition” as required by A.R.S. § 23-1061(H). Polanco argues § 23~1061(H) is unconstitutional as applied to his case.”

Pac. Fruit Express v. Indus. Comm'n, 735 P.2d 820 (Ariz. 1987). · cites it 22× “ISSUES PRESENTED The issues presented on this review are 1) Is the 1980 amendment to A.R.S. § 23-1061(A) constitutional? 2) When does the statute of limitations begin to run on a “compensable claim” under A.”

Pascucci v. Indus. Comm'n, 616 P.2d 902 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 22× “The section provides in part: An employee may reopen his claim to secure an increase or rearrangement of compensation or additional benefits by filing with the commission a petition requesting the reopening of his claim upon the basis of new, additional or previously…”

Cnty. of Maricopa v. Indus. Comm'n of Arizona, 699 P.2d 389 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 32× “See generally A.R.S. § 23-1061(J). [1] On August 31, 1982, claimant also filed a request for hearing protesting the June 21, 1982, notice.”

Kasprowiz v. Indus. Comm'n, 480 P.2d 992 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 36× “The first one involves the interpretation of A.R.S. § 23-1061, subsec. I, and the second one involves the issue as to whether the award is reasonably supported by the evidence.”

Felker v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 653 P.2d 369 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 20× “In February 1980 claimant requested a hearing pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-1061(J) to determine why compensation had not been paid.”

Harrelson v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 697 P.2d 1119 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 30× “In considering her petition, we must decide whether the 1980 amendments to A.R.S. § 23-1061(A) may be applied retroactively to her industrial injury that occurred prior to the effective date of the amendments.”

Show all 367 citing cases →

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1061(1) — 4 cases

Lasiter v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 839 P.2d 1101 (Ariz. 1992). “It must be read in conjunction with the immediately preceding section, A.R.S. § 23-1061, which defines "notice" for the universe of situations which requires the payment of compensation.”

Cornelson v. Indus. Comm'n, 17 P.3d 114 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).

Inspiration Consol. Copper Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 625 P.2d 351 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981).

Gould v. Indus. Comm'n, 552 P.2d 457 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1061(A) — 50 cases

Allen v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 733 P.2d 290 (Ariz. 1987). “§ 23-947 we reiterated, in 1967, our strict interpretation of the filing-of-a-claim requirement imposed by A.R.S. § 23-1061, stating: The statute clearly requires that an application must be filed within one year before a claim can be enforceable.”

Pac. Fruit Express v. Indus. Comm'n, 735 P.2d 820 (Ariz. 1987). “ISSUES PRESENTED The issues presented on this review are 1) Is the 1980 amendment to A.R.S. § 23-1061(A) constitutional? 2) When does the statute of limitations begin to run on a “compensable claim” under A.”

Harrelson v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 697 P.2d 1119 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). “In considering her petition, we must decide whether the 1980 amendments to A.R.S. § 23-1061(A) may be applied retroactively to her industrial injury that occurred prior to the effective date of the amendments.”

Nelson v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 656 P.2d 1230 (Ariz. 1982). “Timothy Van Horn was injured and failed to file a claim for compensation under A.R.S. § 23-1061 within the one-year requirement.”

Henry v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 754 P.2d 1342 (Ariz. 1988).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1061(B) — 2 cases

McKaskle v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 659 P.2d 1313 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982).

Allen v. Indus. Comm'n, 787 P.2d 1107 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1061(C) — 5 cases

Cohen v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 648 P.2d 139 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982).

Inspiration Consol. Copper Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 625 P.2d 351 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981).

Garcia v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 685 P.2d 1336 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).

Arizona S. Coach Lines, Inc. v. Indus. Comm'n, 758 P.2d 656 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).

Allen v. Indus. Comm'n, 787 P.2d 1107 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1061(D) — 6 cases

Magma Copper Co. v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 676 P.2d 1096 (Ariz. 1983).

Frazier v. Indus. Comm'n, 702 P.2d 717 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).

Keeler v. Indus. Comm'n, 592 P.2d 1282 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979).

Allen v. Indus. Comm'n, 733 P.2d 288 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1061(F) — 32 cases

Holler v. Indus. Com'n of Ariz., 680 P.2d 1203 (Ariz. 1984).

Holler v. Indus. Com'n of Ariz., 680 P.2d 1209 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).

Aldrich v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 860 P.2d 1354 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).

Calixto v. Indus. Comm'n of Arizona, 616 P.2d 75 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).

Blickenstaff v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 569 P.2d 277 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1061(G) — 5 cases

Canyon Ambulatory Surgery Ctr. v. SCF Arizona, 239 P.3d 733 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).

Charles W. Stenz v. City of Tucson & Pinnacle Risk Mgmt. Servs., 336 P.3d 737 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).

Evertsen v. Indus. Comm'n, 573 P.2d 69 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977).

Stenz v. Indus. Comm'n, 353 P.3d 361 (Ariz. 2015).

G.K. Tech. v. Indus. Comm'n, 749 P.2d 389 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1061(H) — 91 cases

Stainless Specialty Mfg. Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 695 P.2d 261 (Ariz. 1985). “NATURE OF THE REOPENING PROCEDURE The reopening provision of Arizona's Workers' Compensation Act provides in part: An employee may reopen his claim to secure an increase or rearrangement of compensation or additional benefits by filing with the commission a petition requesting…”

Polanco v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 154 P.3d 391 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). “The ALJ determined Polanco had failed to demonstrate “objective physical findings of [a] change in [Polanco’s] condition” as required by A.R.S. § 23-1061(H). Polanco argues § 23~1061(H) is unconstitutional as applied to his case.”

Pascucci v. Indus. Comm'n, 616 P.2d 902 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980). “The section provides in part: An employee may reopen his claim to secure an increase or rearrangement of compensation or additional benefits by filing with the commission a petition requesting the reopening of his claim upon the basis of new, additional or previously…”

Lovitch v. Indus. Comm'n, 41 P.3d 640 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).

Post v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 770 P.2d 308 (Ariz. 1989).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1061(H)(2006) — 1 case

Sun Valley Masonry, Inc. v. Indus. Comm'n, 167 P.3d 719 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1061(I) — 3 cases

Kollasch v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 783 P.2d 1216 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).

Rubio v. Maricopa co/sentry (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1061(J) — 72 cases

Franks v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 718 P.2d 193 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). “Franks applied to the Industrial Commission in January, 1981, for special relief under A.R.S. § 23-1061(J). The Industrial Commission refused to allow proceedings under that statute and stated that the matter would be handled in a "routine manner.”

Cnty. of Maricopa v. Indus. Comm'n of Arizona, 699 P.2d 389 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). “See generally A.R.S. § 23-1061(J). [1] On August 31, 1982, claimant also filed a request for hearing protesting the June 21, 1982, notice.”

Arrowhead Press, Inc. v. Indus. Comm'n, 653 P.2d 371 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982).

Phelps v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 747 P.2d 1200 (Ariz. 1987).

W. Cable v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 698 P.2d 759 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1061(K) — 3 cases

Cajun Cable Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 754 P.2d 317 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).

Labor Force v. Indus. Comm'n, 911 P.2d 553 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).

Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 594 P.2d 1008 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1061(L) — 4 cases

Howard P. Foley Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 585 P.2d 1237 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978).

Pima Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors v. Indus. Comm'n, 659 P.2d 1320 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982).

Drake v. Az Cardinals (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).

Tipton v. Indus. Comm'n, 734 P.2d 1036 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1061(M) — 17 cases

Felker v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 653 P.2d 369 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). “In February 1980 claimant requested a hearing pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-1061(J) to determine why compensation had not been paid.”

Garcia v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 685 P.2d 1336 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).

Rosarita Mexican Foods v. Indus. Comm'n, 19 P.3d 1248 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).

Aldrich v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 860 P.2d 1354 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).

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.