A. Within the department, an appeals board is established consisting of three members. The director shall appoint the members of the appeals board and shall designate one member to serve as chairman.
B. Hearings conducted by or at the direction of the appeals board shall be conducted as provided by section 23-674 and other provisions of this chapter. The department shall prescribe by rule the procedures for petitioning for review, removal of cases to the board and appeals under section 23-673. An interested party may file either a written or electronic petition for review. On the filing of a petition for review, the department shall prepare a complete record unless the parties stipulate otherwise.
C. In any case in which a petition for review of an appeal tribunal or hearing officer decision has been filed by an interested party, the appeals board may remand the case to any appeal tribunal or hearing officer for further proceedings or may review the matter on the basis of the record in the case, take additional evidence or rehear the matter and affirm, reverse, modify or set aside the decision of the appeal tribunal or hearing officer. On notice to the interested parties, a petition for review may be reviewed by one member of the appeals board designated by the chairman. If an interested party objects to review by one board member, the matter shall be heard by three members of the appeals board.
D. Unless a petition for hearing or review of a department determination made under article 5 of this chapter is withdrawn, the appeals board after affording the parties reasonable opportunity for a fair hearing shall issue its decision.
E. Every decision of the appeals board shall be in writing. If the decision is issued by at least two concurring members of the appeals board, and the appeals board is not unanimous, the decision of the majority shall control. The minority may file a dissent from the decision, setting forth the reasons for the dissent. All interested parties shall be promptly notified of the decision and the reasons for the decision. Notice to the parties of the decision shall be accompanied by instructions explaining the procedure for review pursuant to section 41-1993.
Notes of Decisions
Bruch v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 148 P.3d 538 (Kan. 2006).
· cites it 2× “19(4) (2005) with Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-672 (F) (2005). Moreover, Professor Ryan explained that the Kansas pleading requirements were intended to create a more “manageable framework,55 for reviewing agency actions.”
Avila v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 772 P.2d 600 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 4× “APPEALS BOARD’S FAILURE TO CONSIDER CLAIMANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT AND EXHIBITS Claimant argues that A.R.S. §§ 23-672(C) and 23-674(C) permit the appeals board to take additional evidence and that the appeals board abused its discretion by refusing to consider her affidavit…”
Thompson v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 619 P.2d 1070 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 4× “The deputy, pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-672(C), appealed the decision of the appeal tribunal to the unemployment insurance appeals board.”
Wallis v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 617 P.2d 534 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 4× “” The “appeals board,” established by A.R.S. § 23-672, is designated as the “unemployment insurance appeals board” and consists of three members.”
Lane v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 780 P.2d 414 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 11× “) We therefore hold that the claimant, being a party aggrieved by a “decision upon review” of the Appeals Board, properly *583 invoked the jurisdiction of this court to review that “decision.”
Korens v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 631 P.2d 581 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 23-672(E) requires that all interested parties be promptly notified of decisions of the appeals board.”
Thielking v. Kirschner, 859 P.2d 777 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 23-672(F) (Supp.1992) (allowing thirty days from filing of Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board decision to petition for administrative review).”
Hilde v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 803 P.2d 909 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 4× “We simply do not believe that the legislature could have intended that § 23-672(F) be interpreted as it was in Lane in view of the purpose of the legislation and the fact that the legislature had to know that persons seeking unemployment benefits almost never have attorneys and…”
Rogers v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 644 P.2d 292 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 4× “Upon remand the board may make its determination based upon the record presently before it, or it may, in its discretion, order the taking of additional evidence as authorized by A.R.S. § 23-672 C. A final matter which must be discussed is claimant’s contention that under the…”
Janusz v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 759 P.2d 650 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 2× “See generally A.R.S. § 23-672 (Supp.1987). Arizona Revised Statutes § 23-787(A) provides that persons who receive unemployment insurance benefits to which they are not entitled are obligated to repay the amounts in question.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-672(C) — 9 cases
Avila v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 772 P.2d 600 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
“APPEALS BOARD’S FAILURE TO CONSIDER CLAIMANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT AND EXHIBITS Claimant argues that A.R.S. §§ 23-672(C) and 23-674(C) permit the appeals board to take additional evidence and that the appeals board abused its discretion by refusing to consider her affidavit…”
Thompson v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 619 P.2d 1070 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).
“The deputy, pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-672(C), appealed the decision of the appeal tribunal to the unemployment insurance appeals board.”
Wallis v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 617 P.2d 534 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).
“” The “appeals board,” established by A.R.S. § 23-672, is designated as the “unemployment insurance appeals board” and consists of three members.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-672(E) — 1 case
Korens v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 631 P.2d 581 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981).
“A.R.S. § 23-672(E) requires that all interested parties be promptly notified of decisions of the appeals board.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-672(F) — 7 cases
Bruch v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 148 P.3d 538 (Kan. 2006).
“19(4) (2005) with Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-672 (F) (2005). Moreover, Professor Ryan explained that the Kansas pleading requirements were intended to create a more “manageable framework,55 for reviewing agency actions.”
Thielking v. Kirschner, 859 P.2d 777 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
“See A.R.S. § 23-672(F) (Supp.1992) (allowing thirty days from filing of Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board decision to petition for administrative review).”
Lane v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 780 P.2d 414 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
“) We therefore hold that the claimant, being a party aggrieved by a “decision upon review” of the Appeals Board, properly *583 invoked the jurisdiction of this court to review that “decision.”
Hilde v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 803 P.2d 909 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
“We simply do not believe that the legislature could have intended that § 23-672(F) be interpreted as it was in Lane in view of the purpose of the legislation and the fact that the legislature had to know that persons seeking unemployment benefits almost never have attorneys and…”
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.