Brown v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona
Decision Date | 05 March 1991 |
Docket Number | No. 2,CA-IC,2 |
Citation | 168 Ariz. 287,812 P.2d 1105 |
Parties | Shirley BROWN, Petitioner Employee, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent, K Mart Corporation, Respondent Employer, K Mart Corporation, Respondent Carrier. 90-0046. |
Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Petitioner Shirley Brown, injured her back on October 17, 1982, while working for K Mart. Her claim for workers' compensation benefits was accepted and eventually closed with a finding of permanent partial disability, but no loss of earning capacity. Five years later, on October 23, 1987, Brown filed a petition for rearrangement. The petition was granted and she was awarded $269.30 per month for a loss of earning capacity of over 52%. K Mart protested the award and requested a hearing. Thereafter, the parties entered into a compromise and settlement agreement in which it was provided that, as consideration for K Mart's payment to Brown of $22,000
applicant agrees that hereafter, any supportive medical maintenance to which she or any physician may believe she is entitled in this claim shall be her personal liability as opposed to a liability of the defendant employer, barring reopening subsequent hereto.
The agreement was accepted and approved by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on April 18, 1988.
Thirteen months later, on May 17, 1989, Brown petitioned to reopen her claim. The petition was denied and hearings were held after which the ALJ issued an award denying the petition to reopen, but granting additional supportive care. K Mart timely requested review of the award, but limited the request for review to the issue of whether the settlement agreement released it from liability for supportive care. Within the time allowed for a response to a request for review, but outside the time allowed for the filing of a request for review, Brown filed a Request for Review and Response Request for Review wherein she did not dispute the effect of the settlement agreement, but instead argued exclusively that the petition to reopen was wrongfully denied because the evidence established that Brown was in need of active medical care. Upon motion by K Mart, Brown's request for review was dismissed as untimely, and the award was amended to deny supportive medical care. This appeal followed.
An award of the Industrial Commission is final unless a request for review is filed by one of the parties within 30 days of the award's entry. A.R.S. § 23-942(D). The opposing party has 15 days in which to file a response. A.R.S. § 23-943(A). As parties to an administrative proceeding are required to exhaust their administrative remedies before seeking relief in this court, we will not review an issue which has not been raised in a request for review. Larson v. Industrial Comm'n, 114 Ariz. 155, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Southwestern Paint & Varnish Co. v. Arizona Dept. of Environmental Quality
...203, 207, 895 P.2d 115, 119 (App.1994) (failure to exhaust administrative remedies bars judicial review); Brown v. Industrial Comm'n of Arizona, 168 Ariz. 287, 812 P.2d 1105 (App.1991) (unless a party satisfies the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies by filing a motion for rev......
-
Walters v. Maricopa County, 1 CA-CV 98-0691.
...257-58, 428 P.2d at 114-15 (ten-day and thirty-day periods for motorists to appeal license suspensions); Brown v. Industrial Comm'n, 168 Ariz. 287, 288, 812 P.2d 1105, 1106 (App.1991) (thirty days to file for review of industrial commission award); Highway Products Co. v. Occupational Safet......
-
Dorsey v. Indus. Comm'n of Ariz.
...as required by A.R.S. § 23-1062(A) also is waived, because it was not raised in her request for review. Brown v. Indus. Comm'n, 168 Ariz. 287, 288, 812 P.2d 1105, 1106 (App. 1991). It also is apparent from the record, as Dorsey acknowledges, she was reimbursed for her out-of-pocket costs an......
-
New PCR International v. The Industrial Commission of Arizona, 2 CA-IC 2004-0007 (AZ 9/24/2004), 2 CA-IC 2004-0007
..._______________________________________ PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Judge 1. Relying on Brown v. Industrial Commission, 168 Ariz. 287, 812 P.2d 1105 (App. 1991), Tomlinson contends petitioners waived this issue by not raising it in their request for administrative review or otherwise......
-
§ 5.17 Outline of Procedural Steps and Time Limits.
...5-21 Bohn v. Indus. Comm’n, 196 Ariz. 424, 999 P.2d 180 (2000)................................... 5-11 Brown v. Indus. Comm'n, 168 Ariz. 287, 812 P.2d 1105 (App. 1991)................ 5-10, 12 Buehler v. Indus. Comm’n, 227 Ariz. 520, 260 P.3d 1085 (App. 2011)...................... 5-2 Burto......
-
§ 31.3.2.3.1 Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies.
...1999). Similarly, judicial review is precluded for an issue not raised in a request for administrative review. Brown v. Indus. Comm’n, 168 Ariz. 287, 288, 812 P.2d 1105, 1106 (App. 1991). “[E]xhaustion of remedies is generally a prerequisite to judicial relief which is based on the needs of......
-
11.5 Settlement
...supra note 55; see also A.J. Goulder Elec. v. Industrial Comm’n, supra at § 11.2.7, note 103.[188]Compare Brown v. Industrial Comm’n, 168 Ariz. 287, 812 P.2d 1105 (Ct. App. 1991) and Polito v. Industrial Comm’n, ___ Ariz. ___, 828 P.2d 182 (Ct. App. 1992) with ICA Procedure Manual, subsecti......
-
§ 5.5.4.2 Technical Defenses.
...of findings to permit judicial review when additional findings not requested on administrative review); Brown v. Indus. Comm’n, 168 Ariz. 287, 812 P.2d 1105 (App. 1991) (refusing to consider failure to make specific credibility finding when not requested on administrative...