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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1071 (2026)

Notice by employees with disabilities of absence from locality or state; failure to give notice; change of doctor

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

A. No employee may leave the state of Arizona for a period exceeding two weeks while the necessity of having medical treatment continues, without the written approval of the commission. Any employee leaving the state of Arizona for a period exceeding two weeks without such approval will forfeit the employee's right to compensation during such time, as well as the employee's right to reimbursement for the employee's medical expenses, and any aggravation of the employee's disability, by reason of the violation of this section, will not be compensated. If an administrative law judge approves an employee's request to leave this state after the request for written approval was initially denied by the commission, the employee is entitled to any forfeited compensation and medical benefits from the date the employee first requested the written approval.

B. No employee may change doctors without the written authorization of the insurance carrier, the commission or the attending physician.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases, 1970–1999 · leading case: Israel v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 669 P.2d 102 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Israel v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 669 P.2d 102 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 26× “By findings and order issued August 14, 1980, the Industrial Commission granted permission to leave the state, pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-1071 [2] and approved petitioner's change of physicians.”
Kennecott Copper Corp. v. Indus. Comm'n, 564 P.2d 407 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 9× “Rule 57, Rules of Procedure Before the Industrial Commission, provides in part that “the presiding hearing officer or the Commission may, in his or its sound discretion, relieve the party of the sanctions imposed for his failure to abide by these rules if good cause therefor is…”
Waxler v. Indus. Comm'n, 568 P.2d 1111 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 12× “Accordingly, petitioner’s medical and compensation benefits were suspended, in accordance with A.R.S. § 23-1071. Petitioner now challenges the propriety of this order on review.”
Franco v. Indus. Comm'n of Arizona, 633 P.2d 446 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 4× “Once the initial loss of earning capacity has been determined, the payment of benefits continues unless forfeited or suspended, pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 23-1071, -1026(E), -1027, -1028, and -1047(D) or (E), 1 or changed pursuant to A.”
Castillo v. Indus. Comm'n, 520 P.2d 1142 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 4× “[2] An indication of the need for continuing Commission jurisdiction is found in the provisions of A.R.S. § 23-1071. If the Commission has no jurisdiction, how will an applicant receiving benefits pending review be able to leave the state for medical treatment or personal…”
Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 547 P.2d 470 (Ariz. 1976). · cites it 4× “6, § 56, the Legislature provided that in workmen’s compensation cases: “No employee may leave the state of Arizona or the locality in which he is receiving treatment while the necessity of having medical treatment continues, without the written approval of the commission.”
Scottsdale Mem'l Hosp. v. Indus. Comm'n, 761 P.2d 169 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 11× “that the failure of Perez to comply with the statutory requirements of § 23-1071 for obtaining authorization to change physicians cannot be waived by Commission Rule 57 or granted through retroactive application.”
Bohn v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 984 P.2d 565 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 8× “See A.R.S. § 23-1071(A); A.A.C. R20-5-115(B).”
United Riggers Erectors v. Indus. Comm'n, 640 P.2d 189 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “, A.R.S. §§ 23-1071 (absence from the state without Commission approval), 23-908 (failure to report accident and refusal of employer’s medical examination), 23-1026 (refusal of medical examination), 23-1027 (unreasonable refusal of medical treatment).”
Mountain Shadows Resort Hotel v. Indus. Comm'n, 710 P.2d 1066 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 10× “The claimant contends, however, that the written consent of his attending physician was sufficient authorization for the change, relying on A.R.S. § 23-1071(B): “B. No employee may change doctors without the written authorization of the insurance carrier, the commission or the…”
Frantz v. Indus. Comm'n, 515 P.2d 898 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 7× “A.R.S. § 23-1071 provides as follows: “No employee may leave the state of Arizona or the locality in which he is receiving treatment while the necessity of having ' medical treatment continues, without the written approval of the commission.”
Carabetta v. Indus. Comm'n, 469 P.2d 473 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 2× “The substance of Rule 60 is now codified in A.R.S. § 23-1071. 2 . Findings No. 3 and No.”
Show all 26 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1071(A) — 7 cases
Bohn v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 984 P.2d 565 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999). “See A.R.S. § 23-1071(A); A.A.C. R20-5-115(B).”
Kennecott Copper Corp. v. Indus. Comm'n, 564 P.2d 407 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977). “Rule 57, Rules of Procedure Before the Industrial Commission, provides in part that “the presiding hearing officer or the Commission may, in his or its sound discretion, relieve the party of the sanctions imposed for his failure to abide by these rules if good cause therefor is…”
Israel v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 669 P.2d 102 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). “By findings and order issued August 14, 1980, the Industrial Commission granted permission to leave the state, pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-1071 [2] and approved petitioner's change of physicians.”
Hurley v. Indus. Comm'n, 681 P.2d 463 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).
Minghelli v. Indus. Comm'n of Arizona, 630 P.2d 45 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1071(A)(1995) — 1 case
Aranda v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 989 P.2d 157 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1071(B) — 7 cases
Scottsdale Mem'l Hosp. v. Indus. Comm'n, 761 P.2d 169 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). “that the failure of Perez to comply with the statutory requirements of § 23-1071 for obtaining authorization to change physicians cannot be waived by Commission Rule 57 or granted through retroactive application.”
Kennecott Copper Corp. v. Indus. Comm'n, 564 P.2d 407 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977). “Rule 57, Rules of Procedure Before the Industrial Commission, provides in part that “the presiding hearing officer or the Commission may, in his or its sound discretion, relieve the party of the sanctions imposed for his failure to abide by these rules if good cause therefor is…”
Mountain Shadows Resort Hotel v. Indus. Comm'n, 710 P.2d 1066 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). “The claimant contends, however, that the written consent of his attending physician was sufficient authorization for the change, relying on A.R.S. § 23-1071(B): “B. No employee may change doctors without the written authorization of the insurance carrier, the commission or the…”
Baudanza v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 720 P.2d 110 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
Lee v. Indus. Comm'n, 860 P.2d 1318 (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.