A. Except as provided in subsections B and C, hearings for:
1. Appealable agency actions shall be held within sixty days after the notice of appeal is filed.
2. Contested cases shall be held within sixty days after the agency's request for a hearing.
B. Hearings for appealable agency actions of or contested cases with self-supporting regulatory boards that meet quarterly or less frequently shall be held at the next meeting of the board after the board receives the written decision of an administrative law judge or the issuance of the notice of hearing, except that:
1. If the decision of the administrative law judge is received or the notice of hearing is issued within thirty days before the board meets, the hearing shall be held at the following meeting of the board.
2. If good cause is shown, the hearing may be held at a later meeting of the board.
C. The date scheduled for the hearing may be advanced or delayed on the agreement of the parties or on a showing of good cause.
D. The agency shall prepare and serve a notice of hearing on all parties to the appeal or contested case at least thirty days before the hearing. The notice shall include:
1. A statement of the time, place and nature of the hearing.
2. A statement of the legal authority and jurisdiction under which the hearing is to be held.
3. A reference to the particular sections of the statutes and rules involved.
4. A short and plain statement of the matters asserted. If the agency or other party is unable to state the matters in detail at the time the notice is served, the initial notice may be limited to a statement of the issues involved. After the initial notice and on application, a more definite and detailed statement shall be furnished.
E. Notwithstanding subsection D, a hearing shall be expedited as provided by law or upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances or the possibility of irreparable harm if the parties to the appeal or contested case have actual notice of the hearing date. Any party to the appeal or contested case may file a motion with the director asserting the party's right to an expedited hearing. The right to an expedited hearing shall be listed on any abatement order. The Arizona health care cost containment system administration may file a motion with every member grievance and eligibility appeal that cites federal law and that requests that a hearing be set within thirty days after the motion is filed.
F. Prehearing conferences may be held to:
1. Clarify or limit procedural, legal or factual issues.
2. Consider amendments to any pleadings.
3. Identify and exchange lists of witnesses and exhibits intended to be introduced at the hearing.
4. Obtain stipulations or rulings regarding testimony, exhibits, facts or law.
5. Schedule deadlines, hearing dates and locations if not previously set.
6. Allow the parties opportunity to discuss settlement.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1999–2023 · leading case:
Curtis v. Richardson, 131 P.3d 480 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
Curtis v. Richardson, 131 P.3d 480 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 4× “§ 41-1092.03(B) (2004). The agency “shall prepare and serve a notice of hearing on all parties to the appeal,” and the notice shall include “[a] statement of the time, place and nature of the hearing.”
Dahnad v. Buttrick, 36 P.3d 742 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 4× “Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.05, a hearing in this matter will be convened within sixty days.”
Pima Cnty. Human Rights Comm. v. Arizona Dep't of Health Servs., 303 P.3d 71 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “This is a significantly abbreviated process when compared to the uniform administrative hearing procedures, which provide (1) a hearing typically must occur within sixty days of a request, A.R.S. § 41-1092.05(A); (2) the ALJ has twenty days after the hearing to issue its…”
Gonzales v. State (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 10× “¶10 Nurse appealed to the superior court, arguing the Board violated Arizona law because he was not given at least 30-days’ notice to prepare for the revocation hearing as required by A.R.S. § 41-1092.05(D). The Board argued that 30-days’ notice was not necessary because it had…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1092.05(A) — 2 cases
Pima Cnty. Human Rights Comm. v. Arizona Dep't of Health Servs., 303 P.3d 71 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
“This is a significantly abbreviated process when compared to the uniform administrative hearing procedures, which provide (1) a hearing typically must occur within sixty days of a request, A.R.S. § 41-1092.05(A); (2) the ALJ has twenty days after the hearing to issue its…”
Dahnad v. Buttrick, 36 P.3d 742 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
“Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.05, a hearing in this matter will be convened within sixty days.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1092.05(D) — 1 case
Gonzales v. State (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
“¶10 Nurse appealed to the superior court, arguing the Board violated Arizona law because he was not given at least 30-days’ notice to prepare for the revocation hearing as required by A.R.S. § 41-1092.05(D). The Board argued that 30-days’ notice was not necessary because it had…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1092.05(D)(1) — 1 case
Curtis v. Richardson, 131 P.3d 480 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
“§ 41-1092.03(B) (2004). The agency “shall prepare and serve a notice of hearing on all parties to the appeal,” and the notice shall include “[a] statement of the time, place and nature of the hearing.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1092.05(E) — 1 case
Gonzales v. State (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
“¶10 Nurse appealed to the superior court, arguing the Board violated Arizona law because he was not given at least 30-days’ notice to prepare for the revocation hearing as required by A.R.S. § 41-1092.05(D). The Board argued that 30-days’ notice was not necessary because it had…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1092.05(F)(5) — 1 case
Curtis v. Richardson, 131 P.3d 480 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
“§ 41-1092.03(B) (2004). The agency “shall prepare and serve a notice of hearing on all parties to the appeal,” and the notice shall include “[a] statement of the time, place and nature of the hearing.”
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.