Could Arkansas Food Worker Reopen Stale WC Claim?

What Do You Think?

Phoenix, AZ (WorkersCompensation.com) -- In Arizona, when an ALJ denies a claimant’s request to reopen a workers’ compensation case, the claimant has 90 days to challenge that decision. One case illustrates how a claimant who delays requesting a hearing may still be able to get one.

On May 2022, an employee for a packaged food manufacturer fell and injured her knees at work. The company’s insurance carrier paid benefits at first but terminated them in June after a doctor found no lasting effects from the injury.

In March 2023, an ALJ issued a notice of denial refusing to reopen the claim. 106 days later, the employee requested a hearing challenging that denial.

An ALJ determined that her request was untimely and unexcused. The ALJ confirmed that the company used the correct mailing address. According to the employee, she was receiving all her other mail, but the notice never showed up. She also said she was the only one who used that mailbox. She confirmed that she was not insane or legally incapacitated, and that she didn’t rely on anything the carrier or employer said or did in delaying her request.

The court explained that, under Arizona law, a claimant has 90 days to request a hearing after the denial of a petition to reopen. A.R.S. § 23-947(A). An ALJ can excuse a late filing only if: 

1. The claimant justifiably relies on a representation by the Commission, an employer, or a carrier;
2. The claimant suffered from insanity or legal incapacity; or 
3. The claimant shows by clear and convincing evidence that she did not receive notice. 

A.R.S. § 23-947(B).

Could the employee reopen her claim?

A. Yes. According to her she never received it and the company did not prove otherwise.

B. No. She missed the deadline by 16 days and lacked a viable excuse.

If you selected B, you agreed with the court in De Patino v. The Industrial Comm’n of Arizona, No. 1 CA-IC 24-0007 (Ariz. Ct. App. 12/19/24, unpublished), which held that the employee failed to excuse her late filing.

The court noted that the employee had to provide clear and convincing evidence that she did not receive the notice. She failed to do so. And in fact, circumstances, including the fact that her other mail was arriving in the same mailbox, indicated that she likely received the notice.

“She had a separate mailbox and received all other claim correspondence at the same address. And she testified that no one had misrepresented anything to her and that she was not insane or legally incompetent around the time the Commission sent the notice,” the court wrote.

Because she failed to show any of the three possible grounds for a late hearing request, the court affirmed the ALJ’s decision denying her request to reopen the case.

Share This Article: