Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-421 (2026)

Decisions of the administrative law judge; definition

✓ current as of May 2026

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

A. On the conclusion of any hearing, or before the conclusion of any hearing with concurrence of the parties, the administrative law judge shall promptly and not later than thirty days after the matter is submitted for decision decide the matter in accordance with the administrative law judge's determination. The administrative law judge may affirm, reverse or modify the disputed action and any penalty.

B. The decision shall be filed with the commission. A copy of the decision shall be sent immediately by mail or e-mail to all parties in interest.

C. The decision is final unless within fifteen days after the date on which a copy of the decision is mailed or e-mailed to the parties one of the parties requests a review under section 23-423. The request for review shall be filed within fifteen days from the date of mailing or e-mailing of the decision. For the purposes of this section, "filed" means deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid or actually received at an office of the industrial commission. The decision shall contain a statement explaining these rights and the rights of the parties under section 23-423.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1981–2010 · leading case: State ex rel. Indus. Comm'n v. Galloway, 230 P.3d 708 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State ex rel. Indus. Comm'n v. Galloway, 230 P.3d 708 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 6× “Because neither party appealed from that decision, it became a final order pursuant to AR.S. § 23-421(0(1995). On April 30, 2003, ADOSH filed the Citation with the superior court to enforce the penalties pursuant to AR.”

State Ex Rel. Indus. Com'n v. Galloway, 230 P.3d 708 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 6× “A.R.S. § 23-421(C). ¶ 9 A.R.S. § 23-418(J) prescribes the means for enforcing penalties assessed by ADOSH.”

McAfee-Guthrie, Inc. v. Div. of Occupational Saf. & Health, 627 P.2d 239 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “Thereafter, review before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Board was sought pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 23-421(C), -423(A), and -423(B).”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-421(C) — 3 cases

State ex rel. Indus. Comm'n v. Galloway, 230 P.3d 708 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). “Because neither party appealed from that decision, it became a final order pursuant to AR.S. § 23-421(0(1995). On April 30, 2003, ADOSH filed the Citation with the superior court to enforce the penalties pursuant to AR.”

State Ex Rel. Indus. Com'n v. Galloway, 230 P.3d 708 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). “A.R.S. § 23-421(C). ¶ 9 A.R.S. § 23-418(J) prescribes the means for enforcing penalties assessed by ADOSH.”

McAfee-Guthrie, Inc. v. Div. of Occupational Saf. & Health, 627 P.2d 239 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981). “Thereafter, review before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Board was sought pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 23-421(C), -423(A), and -423(B).”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-421(C)(1995) — 1 case

State Ex Rel. Indus. Com'n v. Galloway, 230 P.3d 708 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). “A.R.S. § 23-421(C). ¶ 9 A.R.S. § 23-418(J) prescribes the means for enforcing penalties assessed by ADOSH.”

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.