A. The request for review of an administrative law judge award need only state that the party requests a review of the award. The request may be accompanied by a memorandum of points and authorities, in which event any other interested party shall have fifteen days after the date of filing in which to respond. Failure to respond will not be deemed an admission against interest.
B. The request for review shall be filed with the administrative law judge division and copies of the request shall be served on all other parties to the proceeding.
C. If review has been requested, the record of such oral proceedings at the hearings before the administrative law judge for purposes of the review shall be transcribed at the expense of the commission.
D. Notice of the review shall be served on the parties.
E. The review shall be made by the presiding administrative law judge and shall be based on the record and the memoranda submitted under the provisions of subsection A of this section.
F. The presiding administrative law judge may affirm, reverse, rescind, modify or supplement the award and make such disposition of the case as is determined to be appropriate. A decision on review shall be made within sixty days after the review has been requested, with preference being given to those cases not receiving compensation.
G. The decision on review shall become a part of the commission file and a copy thereof shall be served on the parties.
H. The decision on review shall be final unless within thirty days after the date of service of such decision to the parties, one of the parties applies to the court of appeals for a writ of certiorari pursuant to section 23-951. The decision shall contain a statement explaining the rights of the parties under this section and section 23-951.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
72
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 1969–2025 · leading case:
Stephens v. Indus. Comm'n, 559 P.2d 212 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977).
Stephens v. Indus. Comm'n, 559 P.2d 212 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 4× “” While both the statute and the rule make it clear that a supporting memorandum is not mandatory, subsection E of A.R.S. § 23-943, makes it equally clear that in the absence of memoranda, the review “shall be based upon the record.”
Ohlmaier v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 776 P.2d 791 (Ariz. 1989).
· cites it 6× “The petitioner sought review pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 23-943(H) and 23-951. The court of appeals affirmed the award.”
Hopper v. Indus. Comm'n, 558 P.2d 927 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976).
· cites it 4× “This motion was opposed on the grounds that the time for filing a petition for Writ of Certiorari, pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 23-943 and 23-951, had expired.”
Castillo v. Indus. Comm'n, 520 P.2d 1142 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974).
· cites it 4× “A cited supra, and A.R.S. § 23-943 subsec. H as amended, requiring that an aggrieved person seek a review within 30 days after rendition of an award, order or finding best effectuates the spirit of the Workmen's Compensation Act by applying the statute to both intermediate and…”
Aguirre v. Indus. Comm'n of Ariz., 445 P.3d 1040 (Ariz. 2019).
· cites it 2× “" The ALJ then issued the following ruling: After a careful review of all the evidence, the undersigned is more persuaded by [CopperPoint's] Legal Memorandum and therefore, concludes [that Aguirre] has failed to carry his burden of proving by a reasonable preponderance of the…”
Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 534 P.2d 304 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975).
· cites it 13× “The statutory basis for a decision upon review is found in A.R.S. § 23-943, and the authority for the review is vested in the presiding hearing officer in each case.”
Sw. Nurseries v. Indus. Comm'n, 650 P.2d 473 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 23-943 E provides: “The review shall be made by the presiding administrative law judge and shall be based upon the record and the memo-randa [of points and authorities].”
Watts v. Indus. Comm'n, 885 P.2d 1077 (Ariz. 1994).
· cites it 7× “On May 10,1993, a “decision upon review” under AR.S. § 23-943 was entered affirming an award against Watts.”
Buehler v. Retzer ex rel. Indus. Comm'n, 260 P.3d 1085 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 4× “The employer or its insurance carrier then gives notice that it either has denied the claim or accepted it, and in the latter case, benefit payments begin.”
Evertsen v. Indus. Comm'n, 573 P.2d 69 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 23-943. 4 . An “award” is defined in A.”
Releford v. Indus. Comm'n, 584 P.2d 56 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 4× “1977) established the following rule regarding an administrative review of a hearing officer’s award in the Industrial Commission: While both the statute and the rule make it clear that a supporting memorandum is not mandatory, subsection E of A.R.S. § 23-943, makes it equally…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-943(A) — 7 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-943(E) — 6 cases
Releford v. Indus. Comm'n, 584 P.2d 56 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978).
“1977) established the following rule regarding an administrative review of a hearing officer’s award in the Industrial Commission: While both the statute and the rule make it clear that a supporting memorandum is not mandatory, subsection E of A.R.S. § 23-943, makes it equally…”
Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 534 P.2d 304 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975).
“The statutory basis for a decision upon review is found in A.R.S. § 23-943, and the authority for the review is vested in the presiding hearing officer in each case.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-943(F) — 10 cases
Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 534 P.2d 304 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975).
“The statutory basis for a decision upon review is found in A.R.S. § 23-943, and the authority for the review is vested in the presiding hearing officer in each case.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-943(G) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-943(H) — 20 cases
Ohlmaier v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 776 P.2d 791 (Ariz. 1989).
“The petitioner sought review pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 23-943(H) and 23-951. The court of appeals affirmed the award.”
Buehler v. Retzer ex rel. Indus. Comm'n, 260 P.3d 1085 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
“The employer or its insurance carrier then gives notice that it either has denied the claim or accepted it, and in the latter case, benefit payments begin.”
Watts v. Indus. Comm'n, 885 P.2d 1077 (Ariz. 1994).
“On May 10,1993, a “decision upon review” under AR.S. § 23-943 was entered affirming an award against Watts.”
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.