Cited by

(finding an employee relationship where the worker was paid by the hour as opposed to being paid by the job).

of Ariz., (if jurisdictional fact issues are distinct from merits, “the trial court may consider affidavits, depositions and exhibits, and does not thereby convert a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction to one for summary judgment”).

But “[s]ubject-matter jurisdiction is ‘conferred by our constitution or statutes’ and ‘cannot be vested in a court solely by waiver 4 SOTO, et al. v. UMOM NEW DAY Decision of the Court or estoppel.’” ¶ 9 (App. 2020) (citation omitted); –82 (App. 1991).

82–83 (App. 1991) (supporting an employee relationship where worker was “paid by the hour, not by the job”); Molnar v. Indus.

“Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived, and can be raised at any stage of the proceedings.”

“Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived, and can be raised at any stage of the proceedings.”

Because the Act, based on the constitutional directive, provides the exclusive remedies to injured workers (with a few exceptions not applicable here), “[t]he superior court lacks subject matter jurisdiction in a tort action against an employer by an employee injured in the course of his employment.” (citations omitted).

But the trial court must first resolve “jurisdictional fact issues” where a question of jurisdiction exists and the “jurisdictional fact issues are not intertwined with fact issues raised by a plaintiffs claim on the merits.”

(“Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived, and can be raised at any stage of the proceedings.” (citation omitted)).

Finality in severance cases is undoubtedly very important, but “[s]ubject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived, and can be raised at any stage of the proceedings.”

¶19 “When ‘jurisdictional fact issues are not intertwined with fact issues raised by a plaintiff’s claim on the merits, the resolution of those jurisdictional fact issues is for the trial court.’” -42 (App. 2003)

P. 56(c)(1); , (recognizing that when “the material facts relevant to scope of employment are undisputed, the question can be decided as a matter of law” ( , Robarge, 131 Ariz. at 282 , 640 P.2d at 213 (recognizing that legal conclusions to be drawn from undisputed facts are properly resolved by the court))).

¶ 8 , (“When 'jurisdictional fact issues are not intertwined with fact issues raised by a plaintiff’s claim on the merits, the resolution of those jurisdictional fact issues is for the trial court.’” ( , )).

See Switchtenberg v. Brimer, 171 Ariz. 77, 82

a case in which “the existence of immunity turns on disputed factual issues,” and, therefore, there is no need for a trier to “determine[] the facts [before] the court then determines whether those facts are sufficient to establish immunity.” Chamberlain, 151 Ariz. at 554, 729 P.2d at 908; see also Bonner v. Minico, Inc., -54, -06 (1988)

see also Bonner v. Minico, Inc., 159 Ariz. 246, 256