23-902. Employers subject to chapter; exceptions
A. Employers subject to this chapter are the state, each county, city, town, municipal corporation and school district and every person who employs any workers or operatives regularly employed in the same business or establishment under contract of hire, including covered employees pursuant to a professional employer agreement, except domestic servants. Exempted employers of domestic servants may come under this chapter by complying with its provisions and the rules of the commission. For the purposes of this subsection, "regularly employed" includes all employments, whether continuous throughout the year, or for only a portion of the year, in the usual trade, business, profession or occupation of an employer.
B. When an employer procures work to be done for the employer by a contractor over whose work the employer retains supervision or control, and the work is a part or process in the trade or business of the employer, then the contractors and the contractor's employees, and any subcontractor and the subcontractor's employees, are, within the meaning of this section, employees of the original employer. For the purposes of this subsection, "part or process in the trade or business of the employer" means a particular work activity that in the context of an ongoing and integral business process is regular, ordinary or routine in the operation of the business or is routinely done through the business' own employees.
C. A person engaged in work for a business, and who while so engaged is independent of that business in the execution of the work and not subject to the rule or control of the business for which the work is done, but is engaged only in the performance of a definite job or piece of work, and is subordinate to that business only in effecting a result in accordance with that business design, is an independent contractor.
D. A business that uses the services of an independent contractor and the independent contractor may prove the existence of an independent contractor relationship by executing a written agreement that complies with this subsection. The written agreement shall evidence that the business does not have the authority to supervise or control the actual work of the independent contractor or the independent contractor's employees. A written agreement executed in compliance with this subsection creates a rebuttable presumption of an independent contractor relationship between the parties if the written agreement contains a disclosure statement that the independent contractor is not entitled to workers' compensation benefits from the business. Unless the rebuttable presumption is overcome, no premium may be collected by the carrier on payments by the business to the independent contractor if a fully completed written agreement that satisfies the requirements of this subsection is submitted to the carrier. The written agreement shall be dated and contain the signatures of both parties and, unless otherwise provided by law, shall state that the business:
1. Does not require the independent contractor to perform work exclusively for the business. This paragraph shall not be construed as conclusive evidence that an individual who performs services primarily or exclusively for another person is an employee of that person.
2. Does not provide the independent contractor with any business registrations or licenses required to perform the specific services set forth in the contract.
3. Does not pay the independent contractor a salary or hourly rate instead of an amount fixed by contract.
4. Will not terminate the independent contractor before the expiration of the contract period, unless the independent contractor breaches the contract or violates the laws of this state.
5. Does not provide tools to the independent contractor.
6. Does not dictate the time of performance.
7. Pays the independent contractor in the name appearing on the written agreement.
8. Will not combine business operations with the person performing the services rather than maintaining these operations separately.
E. A business that uses the services of a sole proprietor who has waived the sole proprietor's rights to workers' compensation coverage and benefits pursuant to section 23-961, subsection N is not liable for workers' compensation coverage or the payment of premiums for the sole proprietor.
F. The written agreement executed in compliance with subsection D of this section shall be null and void and create no presumption of an independent contractor relationship if the consent of either party is either:
1. Obtained through misrepresentation, false statements, fraud or intimidation.
2. Obtained through coercion or duress.
G. If any agreement is found to be null and void under subsection F of this section the insurance carrier is entitled to collect a premium.
Notes of Decisions
Young v. Env't Air Prods., Inc., 665 P.2d 40 (Ariz. 1983).
· cites it 21× “§ 23-902(B); it provides that: When an employer procures work to be done for him by a contractor over whose work he [1] retains supervision or control, and [2] such work is a part or process in the trade or business of the employer, then such contractors and the persons employed…”
Putz v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 51 P.3d 979 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 15× “Because we conclude that Northern Construction does not “regularly employ” any workers, see A.R.S. § 23-902(A) (1996), and is therefore not an employer covered by the Act, we set aside the award.”
Anton v. Indus. Comm'n of Arizona, 688 P.2d 192 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 14× “IV We now analyze the legal conclusions and inferences permitted by the facts in the record: A.R.S. §§ 23-902(A) and (C) state: A. Employers subject to the provisions of this chapter are .”
Hunt Bldg. Corp. v. Indus. Comm'n, 713 P.2d 297 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 46× “The question to be answered in this appeal is whether the test for right to control by the employer is the same under subsections B and C.”
Word v. Motorola, Inc., 662 P.2d 1024 (Ariz. 1983).
· cites it 9× “The defense is based on A.R.S. § 23-902(B), which reads as follows: When an employer procures work to be done for him by a contractor over whose work he retains supervision or control, and such work is a part or process in the trade or business of the employer, then such…”
Donahue v. Indus. Comm'n, 871 P.2d 720 (Ariz. 1993).
· cites it 26× “2 This provision defines those subject to the Workers’ Compensation Act as: “every person who has in his employ any workmen or operatives regularly employed in the same business or establishment under contract of hire____” A.R.S. § 23-902(A) (emphasis added). The Arizona…”
Meno's Constr./aig v. Reyes, 442 P.3d 828 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 16× “21(A)(2), 23-951(A), and Arizona Rule of Procedure for Special Actions 10.”
Wagner v. State, 393 P.3d 156 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 9× “Under AR.S. § 23-902(B), an entity that hires a contractor may be the statutory employer of the contractor’s employees for workers’ compensation purposes if (1) the entity “retains supervision or control” over the contractor’s work and (2) the contractor’s “work is a part or…”
Est. of Wesolowski v. Indus. Comm'n, 965 P.2d 60 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 17× “¶ 15 Also germane is A.R.S. § 23-902(A), which provides: Employers subject to the provisions of this chapter are .”
Danial v. Indus. Comm'n of Ariz., 434 P.3d 592 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 6× “" Danial requested administrative review, but the ALJ summarily affirmed the award. ¶10 Danial timely challenged the ruling.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-902(A) — 25 cases
Putz v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 51 P.3d 979 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
“Because we conclude that Northern Construction does not “regularly employ” any workers, see A.R.S. § 23-902(A) (1996), and is therefore not an employer covered by the Act, we set aside the award.”
Donahue v. Indus. Comm'n, 871 P.2d 720 (Ariz. 1993).
“2 This provision defines those subject to the Workers’ Compensation Act as: “every person who has in his employ any workmen or operatives regularly employed in the same business or establishment under contract of hire____” A.R.S. § 23-902(A) (emphasis added). The Arizona…”
Young v. Env't Air Prods., Inc., 665 P.2d 40 (Ariz. 1983).
“§ 23-902(B); it provides that: When an employer procures work to be done for him by a contractor over whose work he [1] retains supervision or control, and [2] such work is a part or process in the trade or business of the employer, then such contractors and the persons employed…”
Est. of Wesolowski v. Indus. Comm'n, 965 P.2d 60 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
“¶ 15 Also germane is A.R.S. § 23-902(A), which provides: Employers subject to the provisions of this chapter are .”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-902(A)(B)(C) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-902(B) — 39 cases
Young v. Env't Air Prods., Inc., 665 P.2d 40 (Ariz. 1983).
“§ 23-902(B); it provides that: When an employer procures work to be done for him by a contractor over whose work he [1] retains supervision or control, and [2] such work is a part or process in the trade or business of the employer, then such contractors and the persons employed…”
Word v. Motorola, Inc., 662 P.2d 1024 (Ariz. 1983).
“The defense is based on A.R.S. § 23-902(B), which reads as follows: When an employer procures work to be done for him by a contractor over whose work he retains supervision or control, and such work is a part or process in the trade or business of the employer, then such…”
Hunt Bldg. Corp. v. Indus. Comm'n, 713 P.2d 297 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
“The question to be answered in this appeal is whether the test for right to control by the employer is the same under subsections B and C.”
Wagner v. State, 393 P.3d 156 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
“Under AR.S. § 23-902(B), an entity that hires a contractor may be the statutory employer of the contractor’s employees for workers’ compensation purposes if (1) the entity “retains supervision or control” over the contractor’s work and (2) the contractor’s “work is a part or…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-902(B)(2024) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-902(B)(C) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-902(C) — 9 cases
Anton v. Indus. Comm'n of Arizona, 688 P.2d 192 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
“IV We now analyze the legal conclusions and inferences permitted by the facts in the record: A.R.S. §§ 23-902(A) and (C) state: A. Employers subject to the provisions of this chapter are .”
Hunt Bldg. Corp. v. Indus. Comm'n, 713 P.2d 297 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
“The question to be answered in this appeal is whether the test for right to control by the employer is the same under subsections B and C.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-902(D) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-902(D)(1) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-902(F) — 1 case
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.