A. Any employer or other person interested in or affected by an order of the commission may petition for a hearing on the reasonableness and lawfulness of such order by a verified petition filed with the commission. The petition shall set forth specifically and in detail the order upon which a hearing is desired, the reasons why the order is unreasonable or unlawful and the issue to be considered by the commission on the hearing. Objections other than those set forth in the petition are deemed finally waived.
B. Upon receipt of the petition, if the issue raised in the petition has theretofore been adequately considered, the commission shall confirm, without hearing, its previous determination. If a hearing is necessary to determine the issue raised, the commission shall order a hearing thereon at such time as it prescribes. Notice of the time and place of hearing shall be given the petitioner and such other persons as the commission finds directly interested in the decision.
C. Upon the hearing, if it is found that the order complained of is unlawful or unreasonable, the commission shall substitute therefor a reasonable and lawful order, and may grant further time reasonably necessary for compliance with its order.
Notes of Decisions
Holler v. Indus. Com'n of Ariz., 680 P.2d 1203 (Ariz. 1984).
· cites it 4× “" A.R.S. § 23-945 B, * * *. A fortiori, the applicant's REQUEST FOR HEARING must be dismissed.”
Buehler v. Retzer ex rel. Indus. Comm'n, 260 P.3d 1085 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “2d 950, 953 (1975) (A.R.S. § 23-945 (1995), which allows administrative review of any ICA “order,” applies to “orders of the [ICA] relating to administrative functions within the various *523 branches of the department, and not to the processing or adjudicating of workmen’s…”
Waller v. Howard P. Foley Co., 367 P.2d 795 (Ariz. 1961).
· cites it 3× “It is contended that petitioner waived his statutory right to have this Court review the award in that particular.”
Martin v. Indus. Comm'n, 352 P.2d 352 (Ariz. 1960).
· cites it 2× “This rule enables the commission to deal promptly with the applications for compensation, while at the same time a dissatisfied party is amply protected in all of his rights * * Nor is A.R.S. § 23-945, subparagraph B of any benefit to the Commission.”
Godwin v. Indus. Comm'n, 460 P.2d 203 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1969).
· cites it 3× “” § 23-945 A.R.S. Although both the petitioner and the fund agree that the Commission is not bound by the decision of the Social Security Agency and must make its own fact determination, petitioner urges that the report of the Hearing Officer of the Social Security office could…”
Indus. Comm'n v. Jordan, 448 P.2d 895 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1968).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 23-945 and § 23-946. The Industrial Commission entered its order on 24 March, 1967, denying Jordan’s petition and ruling that the tips regulation is “declared valid and in full force and effect”.”
Raban v. Indus. Comm'n, 541 P.2d 950 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975).
· cites it 2× “The language of A.R.S. § 23-945 restricts its application to challenging orders of the Commission relating to administrative functions within the various branches of the department, and not to the processing or adjudicating of workmen’s compensation matters by a hearing officer.”
Davis v. Indus. Comm'n, 437 P.2d 647 (Ariz. 1968).
· cites it 2× “” And see A.R.S. § 23-945, subsec. A (1956). The very existence of the right to apply for a rehearing saves a claimant from possible prejudice or surprise and vouchsafes his right to a fair hearing on the merits.”
Pollard v. Indus. Comm'n, 767 P.2d 22 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 23-945(A) (employer or other interested party may challenge any order of the Commission).”
Mueller v. Indus. Comm'n, 450 P.2d 113 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1969).
· cites it 2× “The procedure to be followed in filing a petition for rehearing is covered by A.R.S. § 23-945. The applicable subsection, B, states in part, “Notice of the time and place of hearing shall be given the petitioner and such other persons as the commission finds directly interested…”
Bergstresser v. Indus. Comm'n, 458 P.2d 961 (Ariz. 1969).
· cites it 2× “In International Metal Products Division of Mc-Graw-Edison Company, supra, we held the Industrial Commission must grant a hearing to a party who is dissatisfied with an award: “No award can be held to have been ‘adequately considered’ within the meaning of this statute (A.R.S. §…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-945(A) — 1 case
Pollard v. Indus. Comm'n, 767 P.2d 22 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
“See A.R.S. § 23-945(A) (employer or other interested party may challenge any order of the Commission).”
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.