Automated Summary
Key Facts
Jesus Abrego, a former employee of Encon United Company, filed a petition for rearrangement of compensation in February 2024 after being laid off. The Industrial Commission sent a 20-day questionnaire deadline which Abrego missed. The Commission denied the petition in March 2024 (incorrectly stating the carrier filed it) and warned of a 90-day hearing deadline. Abrego filed a Request for Hearing in February 2025, 11 months late, which the ALJ dismissed as untimely without justification. The Court of Appeals affirmed this dismissal.
Issues
The court determined that Abrego's Request for Hearing was filed more than 90 days after the Commission's award, and he did not provide a valid reason for the late filing under A.R.S. § 23-947(B).
Holdings
The court affirms the Industrial Commission's award, holding that Abrego's request for a hearing was untimely by approximately 11 months and he failed to provide a meritorious reason to justify the late filing under A.R.S. § 23-947(B).
Remedies
The court affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's decision dismissing Abrego's request for hearing as untimely. The court found the request was filed approximately 11 months after the 90-day deadline and Abrego provided no meritorious reason for the delay, upholding the Commission's award.
Legal Principles
- The court reviewed the ALJ's factual findings with deference but reviewed questions of law de novo, as is standard in appellate review of administrative decisions.
- The court determined that Abrego's Request for Hearing was time-barred under A.R.S. § 23-947(A) because it was filed more than 90 days after the Commission's award. The court also found that none of the exceptions in A.R.S. § 23-947(B) applied, as Abrego did not provide evidence of reliance on a representation, mental or legal incapacity, or non-receipt of notice.
Precedent Name
- Lederman v. Phelps Dodge Corp.
- Kelly v. NationsBanc Mortg. Corp.
- Avila v. Indus. Comm'n
Judge Name
- Randall M. Howe
- David B. Gass
- Anni Hill Foster
Passage Text
- q12 Abrego offers no basis for this Court to find an exception to his time-barred petition. Section 23-947(B) excuses late filings of a request for hearing for three enumerated reasons. A.R.S. § 23-947(B). Relief under this section is warranted if the person filing the late request exercised 'reasonable care and diligence' yet missed the deadline because the person (1) 'relied on a representation by the Commission, employer, or carrier'; (2) suffered from a mental or legal incapacity; or (3) did not receive the notice. A.R.S. § 23-947(B). Abrego has not shown that any of these exceptions apply. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision to dismiss Abrego's Request for Hearing.
- q11 Abrego states he does not agree with the ALJ's decision but he does not explain why this Court should reverse it. The record supports the ALJ's finding that Abrego filed his Request for Hearing well after the 90-day deadline. Moreover, Abrego's requests for hearing and review do not identify any reasons for the ALJ to justify waiver of the untimely filing. When a person is dissatisfied with an order of the Commission, A.R.S. § 23-947(A) provides jurisdiction to the ALJ Hearing Division to hear the appeal for ninety days. The 90-day protest period for Abrego began on March 19, 2024. Thus, Abrego's challenge to the denial of his petition became jurisdictionally barred 90 days after March 19, 2024. See A.R.S. § 23-947(A).