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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-942 (2026)

Awards of administrative law judge; contents; disposition and effect

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

A. On the conclusion of any hearing, or prior thereto with concurrence of the parties, the administrative law judge promptly, and not later than thirty days after the matter is submitted for decision, shall determine the matter and make an award in accordance with the administrative law judge's determination.

B. In the event of the demise, resignation, retirement, termination of employment, or other incapacitation of the presiding administrative law judge, the award shall be determined by the chief administrative law judge or the chief administrative law judge's appointee.

C. The award shall become a part of the commission file. A copy of the award shall be served on all parties in interest.

D. The award is final when entered unless within thirty days after the date on which a copy of the award is served to the parties, one of the parties files a request for review under section 23-943. The award shall contain a statement explaining the rights of the parties under section 23-943.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 63 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1959–2024 · leading case: Dki corp./sylvan Pools v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 845 P.2d 461 (Ariz. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dki corp./sylvan Pools v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 845 P.2d 461 (Ariz. 1993). · cites it 6× “§ 23-1021, and is a liability for the employer or carrier, cf. A.R.S. § 23-966(A).”
Cook v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 651 P.2d 365 (Ariz. 1982). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. §§ 23-942, 23-947.) A request for review was filed the day the error was discovered.”
Stephens v. Indus. Comm'n, 559 P.2d 212 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-942(B), the matter was transferred by the Chief Hearing Office of the Industrial Commission, to Hearing Officer Richard Bacharach.”
Post v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 770 P.2d 308 (Ariz. 1989). · cites it 2× “Post requested administrative review of this award under A.R.S. §§ 23-942(D) and 23-943(A) and (B), but the presiding judge affirmed on November 24, 1986.”
Adams v. State, 261 P.3d 758 (Alaska 2011). “") section 28-942(A) (1995) is not jurisdictional, we affirm the Award and Decision Upon Review for a noncompensable claim.”
Mccurry v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 261 P.3d 776 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 8× “DISCUSSION ¶ 2 McCurry asserts that the Award must be set aside because the decision was issued past the thirty-day period set forth in AR.S. § 23-942(A). 2 Because the issue raises a question of statutory interpretation, our review is de novo.”
Larson v. Indus. Comm'n, 559 P.2d 1070 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 4× “However, under A.R.S. § 23-942, she had the right to and did request a review of the Commission decision.”
Red Bluff Mines, Inc. v. Indus. Comm'n, 696 P.2d 1348 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 3× “They are not section 23-942 awards, which are decisions by administrative law judges made after an adversary hearing on the merits, but were in the nature of a notice of claim status.”
Adams v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 710 P.2d 1073 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 23-942(B). In his award on review, administrative law judge Baum rescinded the award, finding in part: The applicant contends that the evidence of record does establish that he sustained a low back injury while performing these specifically described lifting duties…”
Magma Copper Co. v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 676 P.2d 1096 (Ariz. 1983). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 23-942 provides that at the conclusion of the hearing the matter shall be submitted for decision, shall be determined by the hearing officer and that an award shall be made.”
Brown v. Indus. Comm'n, 19 P.3d 1237 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “” The respondents thus belatedly recognized that the first ALJ had incorrectly awarded supportive care medication to Brown because Dr. Phibbs had stated that such medication was unnecessary to treat the heart attack.”
Allen v. Indus. Comm'n, 347 P.2d 710 (Ariz. 1959). · cites it 2× “Thus, A.R.S. § 23-942 provides: “The commission shall not be bound by the rules of evidence or by technical or formal rules of procedure other than as provided in this chapter.”
Show all 63 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-942(A) — 7 cases
Adams v. State, 261 P.3d 758 (Alaska 2011). “") section 28-942(A) (1995) is not jurisdictional, we affirm the Award and Decision Upon Review for a noncompensable claim.”
Mccurry v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 261 P.3d 776 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “DISCUSSION ¶ 2 McCurry asserts that the Award must be set aside because the decision was issued past the thirty-day period set forth in AR.S. § 23-942(A). 2 Because the issue raises a question of statutory interpretation, our review is de novo.”
Red Bluff Mines, Inc. v. Indus. Comm'n, 696 P.2d 1348 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). “They are not section 23-942 awards, which are decisions by administrative law judges made after an adversary hearing on the merits, but were in the nature of a notice of claim status.”
A.J. Bayless Markets, Inc. v. Indus. Comm'n, 655 P.2d 363 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982).
Buehler v. Retzer ex rel. Indus. Comm'n, 260 P.3d 1085 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-942(B) — 5 cases
Stephens v. Indus. Comm'n, 559 P.2d 212 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977). “Pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-942(B), the matter was transferred by the Chief Hearing Office of the Industrial Commission, to Hearing Officer Richard Bacharach.”
Adams v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 710 P.2d 1073 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). “See A.R.S. § 23-942(B). In his award on review, administrative law judge Baum rescinded the award, finding in part: The applicant contends that the evidence of record does establish that he sustained a low back injury while performing these specifically described lifting duties…”
W.A. Krueger Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 722 P.2d 337 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
McDermott v. balfour/starr (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
Sherman v. conns/travelers (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-942(C) — 1 case
Dki corp./sylvan Pools v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 845 P.2d 461 (Ariz. 1993). “§ 23-1021, and is a liability for the employer or carrier, cf. A.R.S. § 23-966(A).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-942(D) — 24 cases
Dki corp./sylvan Pools v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 845 P.2d 461 (Ariz. 1993). “§ 23-1021, and is a liability for the employer or carrier, cf. A.R.S. § 23-966(A).”
Post v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 770 P.2d 308 (Ariz. 1989). “Post requested administrative review of this award under A.R.S. §§ 23-942(D) and 23-943(A) and (B), but the presiding judge affirmed on November 24, 1986.”
Cook v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 651 P.2d 365 (Ariz. 1982). “A.R.S. §§ 23-942, 23-947.) A request for review was filed the day the error was discovered.”
Brown v. Indus. Comm'n, 19 P.3d 1237 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). “” The respondents thus belatedly recognized that the first ALJ had incorrectly awarded supportive care medication to Brown because Dr. Phibbs had stated that such medication was unnecessary to treat the heart attack.”
Grammatico v. Indus. Comm'n, 117 P.3d 786 (Ariz. 2005).
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.