A. An employer, other than this state or a political subdivision of this state, who secures compensation to his employees in the manner provided in section 23-961, subsection A, paragraph 1 or 2, alone or jointly with other employers, in lieu of making premium payments for medical, surgical and hospital benefits, may provide such benefits to injured employees and may collect one-half of the cost thereof from his employees, not to exceed one dollar per month from any employee, which may be deducted from the wages of the employee.
B. An employer electing to provide such benefits shall notify his insurance carrier and the commission of the election and render a detailed statement of the arrangements made therefor to the commission.
C. An employer who maintains a hospital for his employees or who contracts with a physician for the hospital care of injured employees, on or before January 30 each year, shall make a verified written report to the commission for the preceding year showing the total amount of hospital fees collected and showing separately the amount contributed by the employees and the amount contributed by the employers. The report shall also contain an itemized account of the expenditures, investments or other disposition of the fees, and a statement showing the balance remaining.
D. An employer who fails to notify his insurance carrier and the commission of his election to provide such benefits, or who maintains a hospital or contracts for hospital service as provided in subsection C of this section, and fails to make the financial report required therein, is liable for such benefits as provided in section 23-1062.
E. If the medical, surgical or hospital aid or treatment being furnished by an employer is such that there is reasonable ground to believe that the health, life or recovery of any employee is endangered or impaired thereby, the commission, upon application of the employee or upon its own motion, may order a change of physicians or other conditions. If the employer fails to comply with the order promptly, the injured employee may elect to have medical, surgical or hospital aid or treatment provided by or through the special fund established by section 23-1065. In that event the claim of the injured employee against the employer shall be assigned to the special fund for the benefit thereof, and the special fund shall furnish to the insured employee medical, surgical or hospital aid or treatment as provided in this chapter.
F. Notwithstanding subsection A of this section, a pilot program is established to allow a city with a population of more than one hundred fifty thousand persons and a self-insured county insurance pool to provide medical, surgical and hospital benefits pursuant to this section. The purpose of the pilot program is to determine whether public sector entities that are self-insured can, through a directed care and medical management program, contain costs and improve health care and return to work results for injured employees. The industrial commission shall select the qualified city. The entities participating in the pilot program shall consult with the industrial commission on the protocol for assessment and reporting and shall submit all baseline data to the commission before the pilot program can begin. No earlier than January 1, 2012 and not later than January 1, 2013, the pilot program participants may begin providing medical, surgical and hospital benefits pursuant to this section on approval by the industrial commission. This subsection does not exempt pilot program participants from any other requirements for procurement of a medical network to direct care. The pilot program participants shall report in accordance with the protocol for assessment and reporting, with a final report two years after the start of the pilot program. The pilot program ends and pilot program participants may not provide medical, surgical and hospital benefits pursuant to this section from and after December 31, 2014.
Notes of Decisions
Arizona Pub. Serv. Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 555 P.2d 126 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976).
· cites it 27× “It is unquestioned that petitioner is a self-insured employer who had contracted for the furnishing of medical benefits and had fully complied with the requirements of A.R.S. § 23-1070. 1 The second question presented by the petitioner is whether the respondent employee had the…”
Sw. Gas Corp. v. Indus. Comm'n, 25 P.3d 1164 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 12× “¶ 17 Under § 23-1070(A), an employer other than a governmental entity may, “in lieu of making [insurance] premium payments for medical, surgical and hospital benefits, provide such benefits to injured employees.”
Kennecott Copper Corp. v. Indus. Comm'n, 564 P.2d 407 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 14× “Perez sustained an injury to his right index finger on November 18, 1974, while in the employ of Kennecott Copper Company, a qualified *185 self-insured employer under ARS § 23-1070. Perez received immediate and continuing medical treatment from the staff of physicians at…”
Diaz v. Magma Copper Co., 950 P.2d 1165 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “That section provides that the Act’s exclusive remedy provisions do not apply to an action for medical malpractice against an employee of a hospital operated by the employer pursuant to § 23-1070. Under this section, in lieu of making premium payments for medical, surgical, and…”
Yanochik v. Indus. Comm'n of Arizona, 528 P.2d 1262 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974).
· cites it 8× “Pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-1070 (Supp.1974) respondent employer has elected to provide medical, surgical and hospital benefits directly to its employees.”
Baudanza v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 720 P.2d 110 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 4× “This statutory approval requirement, however, is not generally applicable. It does not *513 apply to the present case because the respondent employer was not a self-provider.”
Mountain Shadows Resort Hotel v. Indus. Comm'n, 710 P.2d 1066 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 7× “Before proceeding further with the discussion of this apparent conflict, we note that the employer in this case is not an employer who has elected to provide medical benefits to his employees in accordance with A.R.S. § 23-1070. If such were the case, § 23-1070(E) rather than §…”
Lee v. Indus. Comm'n, 592 P.2d 785 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 4× “The questions urged on this review of an award entered by the respondent Commission’s hearing officer in a workmen’s compensation proceeding have arisen because the injured workman sought f nd received unauthorized treatment from a physician other than the physician designated…”
Scottsdale Mem'l Hosp. v. Indus. Comm'n, 761 P.2d 169 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 3× “However, this language was interpreting the rights of claimants to change doctors under A.R.S. § 23-1070(E). This statute deals with self-providing employers who have elected to directly furnish the medical benefits required by the workers’ compensation act rather than paying…”
Velez v. Indus. Comm'n, 848 P.2d 886 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 7× “R.S. § 23-1070(A). We have not found any case interpreting the undefined term "political subdivision” as used in the current section 23-1070(A).”
Lee v. Indus. Comm'n, 860 P.2d 1318 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 39× “§ 23-1071(B) applies to self-insured employers who have complied with the requirements of A.R.S. § 23-1070. We hold that A.R.S. § 23-1070 is exclusive and A.”
Capitol Foundry v. Indus. Comm'n, 570 P.2d 808 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 6× “for the proposition that an injured employee does not have an unrestricted right to choose his own doctor and reject the medical services being furnished by the self-insured employer who is in compliance with the provisions of ARS § 23-1070. We are in full accord with that…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1070(A) — 3 cases
Sw. Gas Corp. v. Indus. Comm'n, 25 P.3d 1164 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
“¶ 17 Under § 23-1070(A), an employer other than a governmental entity may, “in lieu of making [insurance] premium payments for medical, surgical and hospital benefits, provide such benefits to injured employees.”
Velez v. Indus. Comm'n, 848 P.2d 886 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
“R.S. § 23-1070(A). We have not found any case interpreting the undefined term "political subdivision” as used in the current section 23-1070(A).”
Lee v. Indus. Comm'n, 860 P.2d 1318 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
“§ 23-1071(B) applies to self-insured employers who have complied with the requirements of A.R.S. § 23-1070. We hold that A.R.S. § 23-1070 is exclusive and A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1070(B) — 2 cases
Sw. Gas Corp. v. Indus. Comm'n, 25 P.3d 1164 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
“¶ 17 Under § 23-1070(A), an employer other than a governmental entity may, “in lieu of making [insurance] premium payments for medical, surgical and hospital benefits, provide such benefits to injured employees.”
Mountain Shadows Resort Hotel v. Indus. Comm'n, 710 P.2d 1066 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
“Before proceeding further with the discussion of this apparent conflict, we note that the employer in this case is not an employer who has elected to provide medical benefits to his employees in accordance with A.R.S. § 23-1070. If such were the case, § 23-1070(E) rather than §…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1070(E) — 11 cases
Sw. Gas Corp. v. Indus. Comm'n, 25 P.3d 1164 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
“¶ 17 Under § 23-1070(A), an employer other than a governmental entity may, “in lieu of making [insurance] premium payments for medical, surgical and hospital benefits, provide such benefits to injured employees.”
Kennecott Copper Corp. v. Indus. Comm'n, 564 P.2d 407 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977).
“Perez sustained an injury to his right index finger on November 18, 1974, while in the employ of Kennecott Copper Company, a qualified *185 self-insured employer under ARS § 23-1070. Perez received immediate and continuing medical treatment from the staff of physicians at…”
Yanochik v. Indus. Comm'n of Arizona, 528 P.2d 1262 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974).
“Pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-1070 (Supp.1974) respondent employer has elected to provide medical, surgical and hospital benefits directly to its employees.”
Scottsdale Mem'l Hosp. v. Indus. Comm'n, 761 P.2d 169 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
“However, this language was interpreting the rights of claimants to change doctors under A.R.S. § 23-1070(E). This statute deals with self-providing employers who have elected to directly furnish the medical benefits required by the workers’ compensation act rather than paying…”
Baudanza v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 720 P.2d 110 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
“This statutory approval requirement, however, is not generally applicable. It does not *513 apply to the present case because the respondent employer was not a self-provider.”
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.