Janis v. Industrial Commission
| Decision Date | 31 December 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 11601--PR,11601--PR |
| Citation | 111 Ariz. 362,529 P.2d 1179 |
| Parties | James L. E. JANIS, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Arizona, Respondent, J.W.J. Contracting Company, Respondent Employer, The Home Insurance Company, Respondent Carrier. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Rabinovitz & Minker by Bernard I. Rabinovitz, Tucson, for petitioner.
William C. Wahl, Jr., Former Chief Counsel, The Industrial Commission of Arizona, Phoenix, for respondent.
Everett, Bury & Moeller by J. Michael Moeller, Tucson, for respondents employer and carrier. STRUCKMEYER, Justice.
This proceeding by writ of certiorari is to review an order of the Industrial Commission dismissing a petition for review by James L. E. Janis for the reason that it was not timely filed. The Court of Appeals affirmed. We accepted review. Opinion of the Court of Appeals, 21 Ariz.App. 547, 521 P.2d 1005 (1974), vacated and the order of the Commission dismissing Janis' petition for review for lack of jurisdiction is set aside.
The facts necessary to decide this matter establish that petitioner Janis had an industrial related injury which was accepted as compensable by the Industrial Commission of Arizona. On September 22, 1972, a hearing officer found that certain of the petitioner's claimed injuries were not compensable and an award to that effect was entered and mailed to Janis on the same day.
By A.R.S. § 23--942(D), an award is final when entered unless within 30 days after the date on which a copy of the award is mailed to the parties one of the parties files a request for review. Janis twice communicated with the Home Insurance Company, the insurance carrier, relating to certain aspects of the award, within the 30-day period, but did not file a protest until October 30, 1972, which, it is to be noticed, was eight days beyond the 30 days provided by the statute. The Industrial Commission treated petitioner's letter of protest as a petition for review and found that 'the PETITION FOR REVIEW was not timely filed and, therefore, the Commission lacks jurisdiction to grant review.' and ordered that it be 'dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.' In this, the Commission palpably erred.
More than two years prior to the Industrial Commission's order of dismissal, in a unanimous decision of this Court authored by Chief Justice Hays, we decided Parsons v. Bekins Freight, 108 Ariz. 130, 493 P.2d 913 (1972). There we stated that the question before the court was whether Parsons' failure to request a hearing within the time limit provided by the statute, § 23--947, deprived the Commission of jurisdiction to determine the matter. We said that we were aware...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bailey v. SWCC
...in Parsons v. Bekins Freight, 108 Ariz. 130, 493 P.2d 913 (1972) and the companion cases following it, Janis v. Industrial Commission, 111 Ariz. 362, 529 P.2d 1179 (1974) and Chavez v. Industrial Commission, 111 Ariz. 364, 529 P.2d 1181 (1974) which have established the rule that "... if a ......
-
Nelson v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona, 15943-PR
...scope of the Commission's discretion in applying the Parsons test, however, was resolved by our decisions in Janis v. Industrial Commission, 111 Ariz. 362, 529 P.2d 1179 (1974), and Chavez v. Industrial Commission, 111 Ariz. 364, 529 P.2d 1181 In Janis, the claimant failed to file a timely ......
-
Kleinsmith v. Industrial Commission
...on appeal is that the language of Chavez v. Industrial Commission, 111 Ariz. 364, 529 P.2d 1181 (1974) and Janis v. Industrial Commission, 111 Ariz. 362, 529 P.2d 1179 (1974), modified the Parsons v. Bekins Freight rule and requires the Commission to hold a hearing directed toward the merit......
-
Blickenstaff v. Industrial Commission of Arizona
...a Notice of Claim Status after the notice is sent. Blickenstaff's position on appeal is that the language of Janis v. Industrial Commission, 111 Ariz. 362, 529 P.2d 1179 (1974); Chavez v. Industrial Commission, 111 Ariz. 364, 529 P.2d 1181 (1974); and Parsons v. Bekins Freight, 108 Ariz. 13......