A. The industrial commission of Arizona is charged with the duties of the administration of this chapter, and with the adjudication of claims for compensation arising out of provisions of this chapter and any of its members or assistants so authorized may:
1. Hold hearings at any place within the state or without the state by agreement of the parties.
2. Administer oaths.
3. Issue and serve by the commission's representatives, or by any sheriff, subpoenas for the attendance of witnesses and claimants and the production of reports, papers, contracts, books, accounts, documents and testimony. The commission may require the attendance and testimony of employers, their officers and representatives before any proceeding of the commission, and the production by employees of books, records, papers and documents.
4. Generally provide for the taking of testimony and for the recording of proceedings held in accordance with this chapter.
B. The commission may make and declare all rules and regulations which are reasonably required in the performance of its duties, including but not limited to rules of practice and procedure in connection with hearing and review proceedings. Such rules and regulations may provide for informal prehearing conferences in order to expedite claim adjudication, amicably dispose of controversies, narrow issues and simplify the method of proof at hearings.
C. The commission may incur such expenses as it determines are reasonably necessary to perform its authorized functions, which expenses shall be a charge against the administrative fund.
D. The commission may charge any person with contempt who refuses to comply with any order of the commission, upon application to the superior court. Any person held in contempt may be punished by a fine of not to exceed one thousand dollars.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
24
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1967–2023 · leading case:
Smith v. Indus. Comm'n, 552 P.2d 1198 (Ariz. 1976).
Smith v. Indus. Comm'n, 552 P.2d 1198 (Ariz. 1976).
· cites it 4× “Is subjective pain compensable under the Workmen’s Compensation law? By its enactment of A.R.S. § 23-921 (B) the legislature gave to the Commission general rule-making power in the workmen’s compensation field.”
Arrowhead Press, Inc. v. Indus. Comm'n, 653 P.2d 371 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 4× “" As a result of this conclusion, the administrative law judge found the carrier liable for the full charge for claimant's prescriptions.”
Rios v. Indus. Comm'n, 586 P.2d 219 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 4× “” A.R.S. § 23-921. The burden of establishing the jurisdictional facts giving the Commission exclusive jurisdiction is on the employee or his dependents.”
Gibbons v. Indus. Comm'n, 3 P.3d 1028 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 4× “The ALJ found in part that the ICA could never assert jurisdiction over a disability insurer such as Standard: 6.”
Gutierrez v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 249 P.3d 1095 (Ariz. 2011).
· cites it 2× “He contends that although the Arizona Legislature delegated to the ICA the power to adopt rules regarding the presentation of compensation claims, see A.R.S. § 23-921(B) (1995), it could not delegate rulemaking authority to the AMA or empower the ICA to do so.”
Gutierrez v. Indus. Comm'n, 243 P.3d 604 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “¶ 15 Claimant alternatively argues that, even assuming the language in Rule 113(B) is interpreted to authorize use of the Sixth Edition, such authorization represents an unlawful delegation to the AMA of the ICA’s authority to rate permanent impairment.”
Fullen v. Indus. Comm'n, 595 P.2d 657 (Ariz. 1979).
· cites it 2× “” The Industrial Commission has, pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-921(B), promulgated its own *428 rules of procedure.”
Liberty Mut. Ins. v. W. Cas. & Sur. Co., 527 P.2d 1091 (Ariz. 1974).
· cites it 2× “By A.R.S. § 23-921: “A. The industrial commission of Arizona is charged with the duties of the administration of chapters 6 and 7 of this title, [chapter 6 being those sections dealing with workmen’s compensation] and with the adjudication of claims for compensation arising out…”
Martinez v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 856 P.2d 1197 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “This power is not unlimited; administrative bodies may make rules and regulations supplementing legislation for its complete operation and enforcement, if such rules and regulations are within the standards set forth in the legislative act.”
Wennihan v. AHCCCS, 515 F. Supp. 2d 1040 (D. Ariz. 2005).
“Thus, any possible waiver is specific to an action brought before the Industrial Commission. Therefore, Plaintiffs proposed claims focusing on state law violations are barred because of Eleventh Amendment immunity- e.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-921(A) — 5 cases
Arrowhead Press, Inc. v. Indus. Comm'n, 653 P.2d 371 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982).
“" As a result of this conclusion, the administrative law judge found the carrier liable for the full charge for claimant's prescriptions.”
Gibbons v. Indus. Comm'n, 3 P.3d 1028 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
“The ALJ found in part that the ICA could never assert jurisdiction over a disability insurer such as Standard: 6.”
Wennihan v. AHCCCS, 515 F. Supp. 2d 1040 (D. Ariz. 2005).
“Thus, any possible waiver is specific to an action brought before the Industrial Commission. Therefore, Plaintiffs proposed claims focusing on state law violations are barred because of Eleventh Amendment immunity- e.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-921(B) — 7 cases
Gutierrez v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 249 P.3d 1095 (Ariz. 2011).
“He contends that although the Arizona Legislature delegated to the ICA the power to adopt rules regarding the presentation of compensation claims, see A.R.S. § 23-921(B) (1995), it could not delegate rulemaking authority to the AMA or empower the ICA to do so.”
Gutierrez v. Indus. Comm'n, 243 P.3d 604 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
“¶ 15 Claimant alternatively argues that, even assuming the language in Rule 113(B) is interpreted to authorize use of the Sixth Edition, such authorization represents an unlawful delegation to the AMA of the ICA’s authority to rate permanent impairment.”
Fullen v. Indus. Comm'n, 595 P.2d 657 (Ariz. 1979).
“” The Industrial Commission has, pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-921(B), promulgated its own *428 rules of procedure.”
Martinez v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 856 P.2d 1197 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
“This power is not unlimited; administrative bodies may make rules and regulations supplementing legislation for its complete operation and enforcement, if such rules and regulations are within the standards set forth in the legislative act.”
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.