Gray v. Indus. Comm’n of Ariz. – 7/18/2024
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One directs that ALJs should conduct a reasonable inquiry into a party’s failure to appear before dismissing a workers’ compensation claim.
While on the job, an assisted living facility employee fell and landed on her knees. The employee went to urgent care to be treated and filed a workers’ compensation claim. The insurance company accepted her claim but, after a year, closed the claim because the employee had not been treated by a doctor in over three months.
The employee protested the closure of her claim to the Industrial Commission of Arizona (“ICA”). An ALJ scheduled an in initial hearing and mailed notice of that hearing to the employee. The notice stated that the hearing would be governed by the Arizona Administrative Code, that all parties would be considered to have knowledge of the Code, that the employee would have the burden of proof, and that the parties would have to request witnesses and file documentary evidence before the hearing. However, the notice did not explain the consequences for failing to attend the hearing or pre-filing witness lists or evidence. A week later, the ALJ accelerated the hearing and mailed the employee a second notice. This notice stated the change of date of the hearing but did not reiterate the admonitions contained in the first notice. Later, counsel for the employer asked the ALJ to postpone the hearing in order to depose the employee; the ALJ obliged and mailed a third notice regarding the new hearing date. Like the second notice, this third notice only referenced the new hearing date.
The day of the hearing arrived and the employee did not attend. In a 90-second hearing, the ALJ summarily granted the employer’s motion to dismiss and did not inquire whether the employer had actually deposed the employee. The ALJ also issued a written decision reflecting the dismissal. Later, the employee sent a hand-written letter to the ALJ explaining she did not receive a time for the hearing and did not know whether she should send her medical records to the court in advance of the hearing. The ALJ took this as a timely request for review but affirmed the dismissal, holding that the three notices were sufficient and the employee’s failure to appear warranted dismissal.
On appeal, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled that the ALJ had abused their discretion by summarily denying the employee’s request for relief from the dismissal of her claim. Such relief is warranted when there is good cause, which turns on several factors including whether there was a pattern of failure to cooperate, whether there was an absence of supporting evidence for a claim, and whether a party had frustrated discovery. The ALJ considered none of these factors after receiving the employee’s letter, which presented at least a colorable explanation of good cause for her failure to appear. The ALJ’s failure to consider the relevant factors constituted an abuse of discretion.
Additionally, although the basis for its decision, the Court reminded all ALJs that dismissal is a harsh sanction and that a reasonable inquiry should be made into a claimant’s failure to appear before dismissing a claim. That was especially true here, where the employee was proceeding without a lawyer and counsel for the employer might have had relevant information (based on their request to depose the employee). This sort of reasonable inquiry furthers the spirit of the workers’ compensation system, which is designed to achieve substantial justice with the humanitarian and compassionate purpose of compensating injured workers in mind.
Judge Campbell authored the opinion, joined by Judges Thumma and Brown.
Posted by: Joshua J. Messer