Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-947 (2026)

Time within which hearing must be requested; definition

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. A hearing on any question relating to a claim shall not be granted unless the employee has previously filed an application for compensation within the time and in the manner prescribed by section 23-1061 and the request for a hearing is filed within ninety days after the notice sent under section 23-1061, subsection F or within ninety days of notice of a determination by the commission, insurance carrier or self-insuring employer under section 23-1047 or 23-1061, except that an employer who is subject to and fails to comply with section 23-961 or 23-962 must file a request for a hearing within thirty days of notice of a determination by the commission, or within ten days of all other awards issued by the commission.

B. As used in this section, "filed" means that the request for a hearing is in the possession of the commission. Failure to file with the commission within the required time by a party means that the determination by the commission, insurance carrier or self-insuring employer is final and res judicata to all parties. The industrial commission or any court shall not excuse a late filing unless any of the following applies:

1. The person to whom the notice is sent does not request a hearing because of justifiable reliance on a representation by the commission, employer or carrier. In this paragraph, "justifiable reliance" means that the person to whom the notice is sent has made reasonably diligent efforts to verify the representation, regardless of whether the representation is made pursuant to statutory or other legal authority.

2. At the time the notice is sent the person to whom it is sent is suffering from insanity or legal incompetence or incapacity, including minority.

3. The person to whom the notice is sent shows by clear and convincing evidence that the notice was not received.

C. The late filing shall not be excused under subsection B of this section if the person to whom the notice is sent or the person's legal counsel knew or, with the exercise of reasonable care and diligence, should have known of the fact of the notice at any time during the filing period.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 113 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1970–2026 · leading case: Wilson v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 709 P.2d 895 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Wilson v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 709 P.2d 895 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 36× “Wilson, raises the following issues: (1) Whether the ninety-day time limit for filing a request for hearing applies to a widow’s request for hearing; (2) Whether A.R.S. § 23-947 violates art. XVIII, § 8 of the Arizona Constitution; (3) Whether A.”

Holler v. Indus. Com'n of Ariz., 680 P.2d 1209 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 38× “It is further established that notwithstanding the clearly expressed statement on the notice that he had 90 days to request a hearing if he disagreed with the notice, claimant did nothing until six months later. In view of these undisputed facts, "justifiable reliance" simply is…”

Holler v. Indus. Com'n of Ariz., 680 P.2d 1203 (Ariz. 1984). · cites it 27× “A.R.S. § 23-947. We believe that in the instant case the petitioner had the right to and did rely upon "a representation by the commission, employer or carrier": [w]hile in its strict sense, a "representation" is an assertion or statement of some fact, it may also include an…”

Kleinsmith v. Indus. Comm'n, 546 P.2d 346 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 16× “On February 1, 1974, Kleinsmith retained counsel and a Request for Hearing directed to the October 23, 1973 Notice of Claim Status was filed on March 6, 1974, 73 days beyond the 60 day limit set by A.”

Cajun Cable Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 754 P.2d 317 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 26× “See A.R.S. § 23-947. Although Mike Dubea was upset when Linda Petruso told him there was no coverage on the date of Field’s injury, he neither contacted the agent nor the carrier.”

Allen v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 733 P.2d 290 (Ariz. 1987). · cites it 18× “§ 23-947 (1971) (“A hearing on any question relating to a claim shall not be granted unless the employee has previously filed an application for compensation within the time and in the manner prescribed by § 23-1061, and such request for a hearing is filed within sixty…”

Epstein v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 741 P.2d 322 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 21× “A.R.S. § 23-947 required that a request for hearing be filed within sixty days 2 and contained no exceptions to that limitation period.”

Circle K Corp. v. Indus. Comm'n, 880 P.2d 642 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 6× “AR.S. § 23-947. Two days later Dr. Williams released Sharp back to work and reported that, although she had localized lower back and hip pain, she no longer had right leg pain.”

Tucson Steel Div. v. Indus. Comm'n, 744 P.2d 462 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 10× “This court concluded that the claimant was precluded from attempting to prove that the industrial injury had caused a psychiatric impairment: There was no protest to the notice of claim status and, in accordance with A.R.S. § 23-947, the determination by the carrier that…”

Frazier v. Indus. Comm'n, 702 P.2d 717 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 16× “He maintains that since the initial finding of a noncompensable claim was issued October 27, 1982 and the request for hearing was not filed until January 26, 1983, the request was filed one day after the 90 day time limitation set forth in A.”

Iphaar v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 831 P.2d 422 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 13× “A.R.S. § 23-947. The ALJ found by clear and convincing evidence that the notice was not received by the petitioner, thereby satisfying § 23-947(B)(3).”

Andrew v. Indus. Comm'n, 576 P.2d 134 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 7× “Once more, the uncontroverted evidence showed that the sole reason for the untimely filing was the miscalculation by counsel for petitioner of the 60-day period prescribed by A.R.S. § 23-947. On October 15, 1976, the hearing officer issued an award dismissing petitioner’s claim…”

Show all 113 citing cases →

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-947(A) — 35 cases

Tucson Steel Div. v. Indus. Comm'n, 744 P.2d 462 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). “This court concluded that the claimant was precluded from attempting to prove that the industrial injury had caused a psychiatric impairment: There was no protest to the notice of claim status and, in accordance with A.R.S. § 23-947, the determination by the carrier that…”

Wilson v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 709 P.2d 895 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). “Wilson, raises the following issues: (1) Whether the ninety-day time limit for filing a request for hearing applies to a widow’s request for hearing; (2) Whether A.R.S. § 23-947 violates art. XVIII, § 8 of the Arizona Constitution; (3) Whether A.”

Allen v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 733 P.2d 290 (Ariz. 1987). “§ 23-947 (1971) (“A hearing on any question relating to a claim shall not be granted unless the employee has previously filed an application for compensation within the time and in the manner prescribed by § 23-1061, and such request for a hearing is filed within sixty…”

Hart v. Indus. Comm'n, 884 P.2d 193 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).

Cornelson v. Indus. Comm'n, 17 P.3d 114 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-947(B) — 35 cases

Circle K Corp. v. Indus. Comm'n, 880 P.2d 642 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). “AR.S. § 23-947. Two days later Dr. Williams released Sharp back to work and reported that, although she had localized lower back and hip pain, she no longer had right leg pain.”

Stapert v. Arizona Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 108 P.3d 956 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).

Cajun Cable Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 754 P.2d 317 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). “See A.R.S. § 23-947. Although Mike Dubea was upset when Linda Petruso told him there was no coverage on the date of Field’s injury, he neither contacted the agent nor the carrier.”

Special Fund Div./No Ins. Section v. Indus. Comm'n, 891 P.2d 854 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-947(B)(1) — 12 cases

Holler v. Indus. Com'n of Ariz., 680 P.2d 1203 (Ariz. 1984). “A.R.S. § 23-947. We believe that in the instant case the petitioner had the right to and did rely upon "a representation by the commission, employer or carrier": [w]hile in its strict sense, a "representation" is an assertion or statement of some fact, it may also include an…”

Holler v. Indus. Com'n of Ariz., 680 P.2d 1209 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). “It is further established that notwithstanding the clearly expressed statement on the notice that he had 90 days to request a hearing if he disagreed with the notice, claimant did nothing until six months later. In view of these undisputed facts, "justifiable reliance" simply is…”

Borquez v. Indus. Comm'n, 831 P.2d 395 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-947(B)(2) — 1 case

Banner Health v. Stauffer (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-947(B)(3) — 6 cases

Epstein v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 741 P.2d 322 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). “A.R.S. § 23-947 required that a request for hearing be filed within sixty days 2 and contained no exceptions to that limitation period.”

City of South Tucson v. Indus. Comm'n, 753 P.2d 1199 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).

Iphaar v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 831 P.2d 422 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). “A.R.S. § 23-947. The ALJ found by clear and convincing evidence that the notice was not received by the petitioner, thereby satisfying § 23-947(B)(3).”

Soto v. Umom New Day (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).

Rendon v. Anixter intl/Indem. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-947(B)(l) — 5 cases

Borquez v. Indus. Comm'n, 831 P.2d 395 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991).

Chavis v. Indus. Comm'n, 885 P.2d 112 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-947(C) — 7 cases

Associated Grocers v. Indus. COM'N, ETC., 652 P.2d 160 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982).

City of South Tucson v. Indus. Comm'n, 753 P.2d 1199 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).

Jaramillo v. Indus. Comm'n, 58 P.3d 970 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).

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.