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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-423 (2026)

Review board rights and procedures; definition

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

A. A request for review to the review board shall be filed with the commission within fifteen days after the date the decision was mailed or e-mailed to the parties and copies of the request shall be mailed to all other parties to the proceeding before the administrative law judge. For the purposes of this section, "filed" means deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid or actually received by the commission.

B. The request for review shall state the grounds for review and whether oral argument is requested.

C. When review has been requested, the record of such oral proceedings at the hearing before the administrative law judge for purposes of the review shall be transcribed at the expense of the party requesting review. The record shall be certified to be true and correct by the office of administrative hearings.

D. The board shall give the parties notice of review by mail or e-mail.

E. If oral argument is requested, a hearing date shall be established and notice of the hearing date will be sent with the notice of review to the parties.

F. The review of the board shall be based on the record submitted to it under subsection C of this section and such oral argument as may be requested and received. If the board determines that a case has been improperly, incompletely or otherwise insufficiently developed or heard by the administrative law judge, it may remand the case to the administrative law judge for further evidence taking, correction or other necessary action.

G. The board may affirm, reverse, modify or supplement the decision of the administrative law judge and make such disposition of the case as it determines to be appropriate. The board shall make a decision within thirty days after review has been submitted.

H. The decision of the board shall be filed with the commission and a copy of the decision sent by mail or e-mail to the parties.  All decisions of the review board shall be in writing.  Decisions of the review board shall be made by a majority vote of the review board.  A decision of the review board is binding on the director and the division with respect to the parties involved in the particular appeal.  The director shall have the right to seek judicial review of a review board decision irrespective of whether or not the director appeared or participated in the appeal to the review board.

I. The decision of the board is final unless within ten days after the date of service of copies of such decision on the parties, one of the parties applies to the court of appeals for a writ of certiorari to review the lawfulness of the decision. A copy of such application shall be forthwith transmitted to the clerk of the court, to the review board, to the commission and to the other parties and within ten days therefrom, the commission shall certify the record, proceedings and evidence before the administrative law judge and the review board to the court of appeals.  On such filing, the court shall have jurisdiction of the proceedings and of the question determined therein, and shall have power to make and enter on the pleadings, testimony and proceedings set forth in such record a decree affirming, modifying or setting aside in whole or in part, the order of the review board and enforcing the same to the extent that such order is affirmed or modified. The commencement of proceedings under this subsection does not, unless ordered by the court, operate as a stay of the order of the review board. No objection that has not been urged before the review board shall be considered by the court, unless the failure or neglect to urge such objection shall be excused because of extraordinary circumstances. The findings of the review board with respect to questions of fact, if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole, shall be conclusive. If any party applies to the court for leave to adduce additional evidence and shows to the satisfaction of the court that such additional evidence is material and that there were reasonable grounds for the failure to adduce such evidence in the hearing before the administrative law judge, the court may order such additional evidence to be taken before the administrative law judge and to be made a part of the record. Petitions filed under this subsection shall be heard expeditiously and the decision of the review board shall contain a statement of this right of appeal.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case: Div. of Occupational Saf. & Health of the Indus. Comm'n v. Chuck Westenburg Concrete Contractors, Inc., 972 P.2d 244 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Div. of Occupational Saf. & Health of the Indus. Comm'n v. Chuck Westenburg Concrete Contractors, Inc., 972 P.2d 244 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 16× “Following these hearings, the administrative law judge entered a twelve-page decision, which summarized all of the evidence presented, recited applicable ease law, and affirmed the citations and penalties.”
McAfee-Guthrie, Inc. v. Div. of Occupational Saf. & Health, 627 P.2d 239 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 4× “The petitioner has exhausted his administrative remedies and brought this special action pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-423(1) to contest one of those violations.”
Div. of Occupational Saf. & Health of the Indus. Comm'n v. Ball, Ball & Brosamer, Inc., 837 P.2d 174 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 5× “A.R.S. § 23-423(1); McAfee-Guthrie, Inc., v.”
Arizona Pub. Serv. Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 873 P.2d 679 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 3× “1992); A.R.S. § 23-423(1). We will hold the Review Board’s findings of fact to be conclusive where they are supported by substantial evidence.”
Markwood Enter., Ltd. v. Div. of Occupational Saf. & Health, 730 P.2d 878 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 4× “Since the Division cited Markwood under a superceded version of the guard design standard, we set aside the decision and order of the Review Board and affirm the decision of the administrative law judge which dismissed the citation.”
High. Prods. Co. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Bd., 648 P.2d 1060 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “Petitioner then filed this special action pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-423(1). CONSTITUTIONALITY A.R.”
Shaffer v. Abbott Labs. (D. Ariz. 2025). · cites it 2× “”); see also A.R.S. § 23-423(I) 28 (providing that the decision of board is final unless a party applies for a writ of certiori to 1 the court of appeals and limiting the court’s review to the findings of and evidence before 2 the division review board).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-423(1) — 6 cases
McAfee-Guthrie, Inc. v. Div. of Occupational Saf. & Health, 627 P.2d 239 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981). “The petitioner has exhausted his administrative remedies and brought this special action pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-423(1) to contest one of those violations.”
Arizona Pub. Serv. Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 873 P.2d 679 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). “1992); A.R.S. § 23-423(1). We will hold the Review Board’s findings of fact to be conclusive where they are supported by substantial evidence.”
Div. of Occupational Saf. & Health of the Indus. Comm'n v. Ball, Ball & Brosamer, Inc., 837 P.2d 174 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). “A.R.S. § 23-423(1); McAfee-Guthrie, Inc., v.”
Div. of Occupational Saf. & Health of the Indus. Comm'n v. Chuck Westenburg Concrete Contractors, Inc., 972 P.2d 244 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). “Following these hearings, the administrative law judge entered a twelve-page decision, which summarized all of the evidence presented, recited applicable ease law, and affirmed the citations and penalties.”
Markwood Enter., Ltd. v. Div. of Occupational Saf. & Health, 730 P.2d 878 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). “Since the Division cited Markwood under a superceded version of the guard design standard, we set aside the decision and order of the Review Board and affirm the decision of the administrative law judge which dismissed the citation.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-423(C) — 1 case
Div. of Occupational Saf. & Health of the Indus. Comm'n v. Chuck Westenburg Concrete Contractors, Inc., 972 P.2d 244 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). “Following these hearings, the administrative law judge entered a twelve-page decision, which summarized all of the evidence presented, recited applicable ease law, and affirmed the citations and penalties.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-423(F) — 2 cases
Div. of Occupational Saf. & Health of the Indus. Comm'n v. Ball, Ball & Brosamer, Inc., 837 P.2d 174 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). “A.R.S. § 23-423(1); McAfee-Guthrie, Inc., v.”
Div. of Occupational Saf. & Health of the Indus. Comm'n v. Chuck Westenburg Concrete Contractors, Inc., 972 P.2d 244 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). “Following these hearings, the administrative law judge entered a twelve-page decision, which summarized all of the evidence presented, recited applicable ease law, and affirmed the citations and penalties.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-423(G) — 1 case
Div. of Occupational Saf. & Health of the Indus. Comm'n v. Chuck Westenburg Concrete Contractors, Inc., 972 P.2d 244 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). “Following these hearings, the administrative law judge entered a twelve-page decision, which summarized all of the evidence presented, recited applicable ease law, and affirmed the citations and penalties.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-423(H) — 1 case
Div. of Occupational Saf. & Health of the Indus. Comm'n v. Chuck Westenburg Concrete Contractors, Inc., 972 P.2d 244 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). “Following these hearings, the administrative law judge entered a twelve-page decision, which summarized all of the evidence presented, recited applicable ease law, and affirmed the citations and penalties.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-423(I) — 1 case
Shaffer v. Abbott Labs. (D. Ariz. 2025). “”); see also A.R.S. § 23-423(I) 28 (providing that the decision of board is final unless a party applies for a writ of certiori to 1 the court of appeals and limiting the court’s review to the findings of and evidence before 2 the division review board).”
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.