A. Employers who comply with the provisions of section 23-961 or 23-962 as to securing compensation, and the employers' workers' compensation insurance carriers or administrative service representatives, shall not be liable for damages at common law or by statute, except as provided in this section, for injury or death of an employee wherever occurring, but it shall be optional with employees to accept compensation as provided by this chapter or to reject the provisions of this chapter and retain the right to sue the employer as provided by law.
B. The employee's election to reject the provisions of this chapter shall be made by a notice in writing, signed and dated by him and given to his employer, in duplicate in substantially the following form:
To (name of employer):
You are hereby notified that the undersigned elects to reject the terms, conditions and provisions of the law for the payment of compensation, as provided by the compulsory compensation law of the state of Arizona, and acts amendatory thereto.
C. The notice shall be filed with the employer prior to injuries sustained by the employee, and within five days the employer shall file with his insurance carrier the notice so served by the employee. All employees shall be conclusively presumed to have elected to take compensation in accordance with the terms, conditions and provisions of this chapter unless the notice in writing has been served by the employee upon his employer prior to injury.
D. Every employer engaged in the occupations designated in this chapter shall post and keep posted in a conspicuous place upon his premises, in English and Spanish and available for inspection by all workmen, a notice in substantially the following form:
All employees are hereby notified that in the event they do not specifically reject the provisions of the compulsory compensation law they are deemed by the laws of Arizona to have accepted the provisions of such law, and to have elected to accept compensation under the terms of such law, and that under the terms thereof employees have the right to reject the same by written notice thereof prior to any injury sustained, and that blanks and forms for such notice are available to all employees at the office of this company.
E. If an employer fails to post and keep posted the notice as required by this section, or fails to keep available at the place where the employees are hired the blank forms of notice to be signed by the employee, no employee who thereafter engages in employment for such employer, during the time that the notices are not posted or during the time that the blanks are not available, shall be deemed to have accepted the provisions of this chapter, and it shall be optional for such employee, if injured during the period when blanks were not available or the notice was not posted, to accept compensation under the provisions of this chapter or maintain other action against the employer.
Notes of Decisions
Franks v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 718 P.2d 193 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 20× “USF & G also relies on A.R.S. § 23-906 which permitted Franks to elect between the workers' compensation system or the right to sue under the common law.”
Jackson v. Northland Constr. Co., 531 P.2d 144 (Ariz. 1975).
· cites it 41× “A complaint for wrongful death was filed by the surviving spouse of Larry Jackson and by the personal representative of the Estate of Ferenc Ovary against the Northland Construction Company alleging negligence and failure to post the notices required by A.”
Sneed v. Belt, 635 P.2d 517 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 21× “Under A.R.S. § 23-906 E, an injured employee may accept compensation under the workmen’s compensation law or he may sue his employer at common law if the employer has not posted the notices required under the act.”
Ream v. Wendt, 410 P.2d 119 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1966).
· cites it 24× “The plaintiff’s suit against the defendant-employer is based on three contentions: (1) that A.R.S. § 23-906, subsec. C providing, inter alia, that employees who fail to reject the Workmen’s Compensation Act prior to injury are “* * * conclusively presumed to have elected to take…”
Circle K Corp. v. Rosenthal, 574 P.2d 856 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 10× “At the trial of the jurisdictional issue, the court made findings of fact and conclusions of law to the effect that Rosenthal was entitled to reject benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Act and maintain a common law action against his employer because Circle K had not…”
Anderson v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 711 P.2d 595 (Ariz. 1985).
· cites it 11× “l amendment permitted the legislature to mandate that an employee who had failed to reject compensation before injury had waived tort remedies and chosen compensation against a complying employer, Pressley III holds that the rule of Ujack, Crisman and Moseley still obtains with…”
Ringling Bros. & Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. v. Superior Court, 680 P.2d 174 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 10× “The petitioner’s motion to dismiss is grounded on the premise that Julio Farias was an employee of Ringling Brothers within the meaning of the workmen’s compensation laws, that he was injured in an accident arising out of and in the course of nis employment, and that therefore…”
Dietz v. Gen. Elec. Co., 821 P.2d 166 (Ariz. 1991).
· cites it 5× “for injury or death of an employee____” A.R.S. § 23-906(A). The sole relevant exception is for employees who have “elected” to reject the provisions of the workers’ compensation law and thereby retained their common law rights against their employer.”
Callan v. Bernini, 141 P.3d 737 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 7× “” Therefore, an employee who accepts compensation benefits for a work-related injury “waives the right to exercise any option to institute proceedings in court against his employer or any co-employee acting within the scope of his employment.” A.R.”
Young v. Env't Air Prods., Inc., 665 P.2d 40 (Ariz. 1983).
· cites it 5× “§ 23-902(B)), and was, therefore, entitled to the benefit of A.R.S. §§ 23-906 and 23-1022, which provide that absent rejection of compensation coverage before injury, workmen’s compensation is an injured employee’s exclusive remedy against an employer who has complied with the…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-906(A) — 21 cases
Franks v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 718 P.2d 193 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
“USF & G also relies on A.R.S. § 23-906 which permitted Franks to elect between the workers' compensation system or the right to sue under the common law.”
Dietz v. Gen. Elec. Co., 821 P.2d 166 (Ariz. 1991).
“for injury or death of an employee____” A.R.S. § 23-906(A). The sole relevant exception is for employees who have “elected” to reject the provisions of the workers’ compensation law and thereby retained their common law rights against their employer.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-906(B) — 5 cases
Circle K Corp. v. Rosenthal, 574 P.2d 856 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977).
“At the trial of the jurisdictional issue, the court made findings of fact and conclusions of law to the effect that Rosenthal was entitled to reject benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Act and maintain a common law action against his employer because Circle K had not…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-906(C) — 3 cases
Anderson v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 711 P.2d 595 (Ariz. 1985).
“l amendment permitted the legislature to mandate that an employee who had failed to reject compensation before injury had waived tort remedies and chosen compensation against a complying employer, Pressley III holds that the rule of Ujack, Crisman and Moseley still obtains with…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-906(D) — 11 cases
Anderson v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 711 P.2d 595 (Ariz. 1985).
“l amendment permitted the legislature to mandate that an employee who had failed to reject compensation before injury had waived tort remedies and chosen compensation against a complying employer, Pressley III holds that the rule of Ujack, Crisman and Moseley still obtains with…”
Circle K Corp. v. Rosenthal, 574 P.2d 856 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977).
“At the trial of the jurisdictional issue, the court made findings of fact and conclusions of law to the effect that Rosenthal was entitled to reject benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Act and maintain a common law action against his employer because Circle K had not…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-906(E) — 8 cases
Ringling Bros. & Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. v. Superior Court, 680 P.2d 174 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).
“The petitioner’s motion to dismiss is grounded on the premise that Julio Farias was an employee of Ringling Brothers within the meaning of the workmen’s compensation laws, that he was injured in an accident arising out of and in the course of nis employment, and that therefore…”
Jackson v. Northland Constr. Co., 531 P.2d 144 (Ariz. 1975).
“A complaint for wrongful death was filed by the surviving spouse of Larry Jackson and by the personal representative of the Estate of Ferenc Ovary against the Northland Construction Company alleging negligence and failure to post the notices required by A.”
Anderson v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 711 P.2d 595 (Ariz. 1985).
“l amendment permitted the legislature to mandate that an employee who had failed to reject compensation before injury had waived tort remedies and chosen compensation against a complying employer, Pressley III holds that the rule of Ujack, Crisman and Moseley still obtains with…”
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.