Courey v. housing/copperpoint

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE

DAVID COUREY, Petitioner,

v.

THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

HOUSING AUTHORITY MARICOPA COUNTY, Respondent Employer,

COPPERPOINT INSURANCE CO, Respondent Insurance Carrier.

No. 1 CA-IC 22-0027
FILED 1-17-2023

Special Action - Industrial Commission
ICA Claim No. 89081040999
Carrier Claim No. 8911532
The Honorable Paula R. Eaton, Administrative Law Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

David Courey, Lake Havasu City
Petitioner

Industrial Commission of Arizona, Phoenix
By Gaetano J. Testini
Counsel for Respondent
CopperPoint Insurance Company, Phoenix
By Chiko F. Swiney
Counsel for Respondent Employer and Insurance Carrier

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Vice Chief Judge David B. Gass
joined.

B A I L E Y, Judge:

¶1 Petitioner David Courey challenges the Industrial
Commission of Arizona’s (“ICA”) dismissal of his petition to reopen his
workers’ compensation claim because he failed, without good cause, to file
a timely request for administrative review. Because Courey has shown no
error, that dismissal stands.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Courey was injured in 1989 while working for the Housing
Authority of Maricopa County. He injured his shoulder and back and was
treated for years. In 2017, his claim was closed by carrier CopperPoint
Insurance Company.

¶3 In May 2021, Courey filed a petition to reopen his claim for
further medical treatment. On June 15, 2021, CopperPoint denied his
request. On September 27, 2021, more than a hundred days later, Courey
filed a request for hearing, protesting the denial. CopperPoint moved to
dismiss the request because it was filed beyond the 90 days required by
statute. An ICA administrative law judge (“ALJ”) held a hearing focused
solely on the issue of whether there was reasonable cause for the untimely
filing. At the hearing, Courey admitted that he timely received the June 15,
2021, denial of his petition to reopen but claimed that he filed his hearing
request late because he had trouble getting documentation from his doctor
or hospital in a timely fashion.

¶4 The ALJ issued an award on February 14, 2022, finding that
the hearing request had been untimely filed without good cause for excusal.
The award informed the parties that they must file a written request for
administrative review within 30 days of the award mailing if they wanted

2
 COUREY v. HOUSING/COPPERPOINT
Decision of the Court

the ALJ to review and reconsider the award. On March 21, 2022, 35 days
later, Courey filed a request for administrative review. The request was
denied as untimely and for failing to state good cause for being filed beyond
the 30-day deadline. Courey then brought this action for judicial review.

DISCUSSION

¶5 Arizona Revised Statutes § 23-942(D) declares that an ICA
award is final unless one of the parties files a request for review within 30
days of service. When an untimely request for review is filed, the ICA must
consider whether there is cause for the untimeliness, there has been an
excessive delay, the delay prejudiced the other party, and the interests of
justice require a waiver of the deadline. Janis v. Indus. Comm’n, 111 Ariz.
362, 363 (1974).

¶6 As applied, the record does not contain the reason Courey
filed his review request late. Thus, he did not establish a good cause for the
late filing. Even in his brief filed in this Court, he has not explained why he
failed to meet the 30-day deadline. The record shows that the award
informed him of the 30-day deadline, so he knew of its importance. When
he missed that deadline, the award dismissing his petition to reopen for
failure to timely request a hearing after denial became final. In addition,
his reason for failing to meet the 90-day deadline (that he was waiting for
medical documentation) does not constitute good cause either.
Accordingly, Courey has shown no abuse of discretion in the ICA’s denial
of his petition to reopen.

CONCLUSION

¶7 We affirm the ICA dismissal.

AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: AA

3