The Office of Administrative
Hearings
The Sixth Annual Report
to
Governor Jane Dee Hull
Senator Randall Gnant, President of the Senate
Representative Jim Weiers, Speaker of the House

Pursuant to A.R.S. §41-1092.01(C)(5)
and
A.R.S. §41-1092.01(C)(9)

Cliff J. Vanell, Director
November 1, 2001

18

I.

Introduction and Overview

The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) was created pursuant to Laws 1995, Chapter 251,
adding Arizona Revised Statutes §41-1092 et seq., and commenced operation on January 1, 1996.
Administrative hearings previously provided by regulatory agencies (except those specifically exempted) were transferred to the OAH for independent proceedings. There are two OAH locations,
Phoenix and Tucson, with 34 full-time positions, including the Director, the Chief Executive Assistant,
1 Case Management Supervisor, the Office Manager, 20 Administrative Law Judges (ALJ), and 10
support staff. In addition to conducting hearings in Phoenix and Tucson, the OAH travels nearly four
weeks per month on rotation to Flagstaff, Kingman, Lake Havasu City, Prescott, Show Low, Sierra
Vista, and Yuma. Our statutory mandate is to “ensure that the public receives fair and independent
administrative hearings.”
Responsibility:
The OAH understands its responsibility to create a system that is efficient and cost effective.
The statistics of the OAH in FY 2001 indicate agency acceptance of ALJ recommended orders
without modification was 94.12%. Agency acceptance of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law without modification was 97.19%. Rehearings (0.57%) and appeals (2.18%) were rare.
Evaluations by participants continue to indicate that ALJs and the OAH were rated excellent or
good in 94.9% to 98.2% of responses.
Integrity:
The OAH takes its statutory mandate to provide fair, impartial and independent hearings seriously. Although part of the Executive branch, together with its client agencies, the OAH maintains a conscious detachment from political issues and the missions of the other agencies.
Procedures, rulings, and case assignment are at all times kept free of outside pressures to
ensure that all parties can be assured that hearings are impartial and independent.
Commitment:
The OAH views commitment as a willingness to advance its mission. The OAH may on occasion take a position that conflicts with the predisposition of a client agency. Although the OAH
works to accommodate legitimate needs of an agency, the OAH does so only in a way consistent with the fairness, impartiality, independence and efficiency of its hearings. The OAH recommends that A.R.S. §8-201 better define “physical injury” as it relates to abuse in hearings conducted by the OAH pursuant to A.R.S. §8-811 due to the range of reasonable interpretations and
the resulting inconsistency in our adjudication. A detailed analysis of the problem may be found
in the “Recommendations” section of this report.
Efficiency:
Through careful case management, the OAH enjoys a minimal backlog. In FY 1999, the OAH
conclusion rate was 92.6% (7.4% more cases filed than concluded). In FY 2000, despite the
112.7% increase in filed cases (3336 to 7096 ), the conclusion rate increased to 98.2% (1.8%
more cases filed than concluded). In FY 2001, despite a 5.8% increase in cases, the conclusion
rate has increased to 99.92%. As has been pointed out in previous reports, this illustrates the
effectiveness of cross-training of judges. Cross-training of judges continues to result in real
benefits to taxpayers and parties alike. First, ALJ time can be leveled out to avoid one ALJ
assigned in a single area to be underutilized while an ALJ assigned in another area cannot meet
existing challenges. Secondly, personal and professional growth, collegiality and a larger focus
encourages more creativity and better problem-solving.

1

II.

Continued Development of the Office
1. Development of Administrative Law Judge Cadres
A.R.S. §41-1092.01 makes explicit the requirement that the OAH provide technical training to
administrative law judges. In addition, A.R.S. §41-1092.07 created a statutory right to file a
nonperemptory motion with the OAH Director to disqualify an administrative law judge for bias,
prejudice, personal interest or lack of technical expertise necessary for a particular hearing. In
FY 2001, in addition to training, which included Bar sponsored continuing legal education, privately presented courses, as well as contracted presentations, the OAH provided 40 hours of
continuing education opportunities to each administrative law judge to ensure professional
development.

2. Report of the Private Right of Action A.R.S. §41-1092.12
On September 29, 2000, the OAH submitted to the Governor, the President of the Senate and
the Speaker of the House, pursuant to Laws 1998, Ch. 85, §1 (SB 1348) a report which included
its observations regarding the effectiveness of the appeal procedure of A.R.S. §41-1092.12, the
observations of affected parties, and statistical data regarding final disposition. A copy is included as Appendix 1.

3. Publication of Substantive Policy Statements
The OAH published PS 1.0 Interpreting of the terms, “signature” and “express mail” for the
purposes of A.A.C. R2-19-108 Filing Documents. In addition, the OAH published PS 2.0. reflecting Inapplicability of A.A.C. R2-19-107 in computing statutory time limits of A.R.S. §41-1092 et
seq. A copy of each of these policy statements is included as Appendix 2.

4. Newsletter
The OAH has completed publication of four editions of the OAH Newsletter on a quarterly basis
during FY 2001. The Newsletter reports various performance measures and discusses current
issues. The Newsletter now includes a series of articles written by administrative law judges
that include practice pointers. All articles appear on the OAH website, along with the OAH
performance measures. Copies of the four editions published in FY 2001 are included in Appendix 3.

5. Externship
Mindful of our responsibility to aid in the advancement of justice, the Office of Administrative
Hearings applied and was again approved for an ASU Law Student Externship. The externship
was created to be up to 180 hours of education and skill building within the particular field of
Arizona Taxation Administrative Law. One Administrative Law Judge trained and supervised the
law student in addition to normal case load processes.

2

III.
1.

Summary of Agency use of OAH Services
Case Management

a. Breakdown of Cases Filed by Agency (FY 2001)
A total of 7,511 cases were filed with the OAH in FY 2001. The distribution among the agencies
and boards are as follows (in descending order by number of cases filed):
Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System
Registrar of Contractors
Department of Administration-Capitol Police Parking
Department of Economic Security - CPS
Department of Health Services
Department of Building and Fire Safety
Department of Environmental Quality
Department of Insurance
Department of Revenue
Liquor Licenses and Control
Department of Real Estate
Department of Weights and Measures
State Board of Accountancy
Structural Pest Control Commission
State Banking Department
Office of Alternative Fuel Recovery
Department of Administration
State Board of Cosmetology
State Board of Nursing
Department of Racing
Department of Water Resources
Board of Medical Examiners
Peace Officers Standards and Training
Department of Gaming
Board of Chiropractic Examiners
Board of Dental Examiners
State Land Department
Department of Public Safety - Student Transportation
Board of Technical Registration
Department of Public Safety - Concealed Weapons Permit Unit
Board of Appraisal
Board of Behavioral Health Examiners
Arizona Lottery
Board of Psychologist Examiners
Department of Public Safety - Adult Care Clearance
Citizens Clean Elections Commission
Department of Education
Acupuncture Board of Examiners
Arizona Works-Maximus-(DES)
Board of Nursing Care Institution Administrators Examiners
Board of Podiatry Examiners
Department of Agriculture
Office of the Attorney General
Secretary of State - Business Services Division
State Schools for the Deaf and the Blind

3

4019
1569
345
209
207
200
147
119
116
100
76
55
54
33
32
31
23
22
19
14
13
11
11
10
9
9
9
7
6
6
5
4
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

b. Number of Cases Filed versus Cases Concluded
The number of cases filed increased in FY 2001. The OAH was able to increase its conclusion
rate to accommodate the increase. The completion rate for FY 2001, defined as cases concluded over new cases filed, was 99.92%.

Comparison of Cases Filed v. Cases Concluded
8000

6970 7096

7505 7511

7000
6000
Cases

5000
Cases Concluded
4000
3000

3092

3336

Cases Filed

2357 2498

2000
1000
0
FY1998

FY1999

FY2000

FY2001

The following diagram illustrates that, in most cases, matters proceed to hearing. Matters which
are vacated indicate that some portion of the OAH hearing calendar is taken up unnecessarily.
Statute calls for the setting of hearings within 60 days of a request for hearing by an agency in a
“contested case” and within 60 days of an appeal of an “appealable agency action”. Although an
argument could be made that such timelines inevitably result in unnecessary hearing settings,
case management at the OAH discourages cases being “on hold” or riding the calendar. Generally a matter is vacated from the first hearing setting as the result of settlement. Therefore, on
the whole, statutory time limits are beneficial to the larger process of regulatory action.

4

Disposition of Concluded Cases FY 2001

Vacated by
ALJ
30%

Vacated by
Agency
2%

Hearing
Conducted
68%

c. Timeline of Case Management
A.R.S. §41-1092.05(A) and §41-1092.08(A) and (B) contemplate a rigorous timeline to expedite
hearings and final agency actions. “Appealable agency actions” (defined as actions taken by an
agency without a prior hearing) are required to be set for hearing within 60 days of a request by a
party. “Contested cases” (defined as proposed actions for which a hearing is required) are
required to be set within 60 days of an agency request. Administrative decisions must be transmitted to the agencies within 20 days of the conclusion of the hearing. The directors and boards
are required to take final action within 30 days of receipt.
The following diagram illustrates the average timelines:

Average Days Between Selected Events
Appealable Agency Actions v. Contested Cases
60

51.66

50

43.47

40
AAA

30

10

18.19

15.77

20
7.21
1.73

9.38

1.4

0
Request for Hearing
to Scheduling

Scheduling to First
Hearing Date

Conclusion of
Hearing to ALJ
Decision

5

ALJ Decision to
Agency Action

CC

d. Incidence of Continuance
A single continuance adds an of average of 37 days to the length of a case. 77.35% of all continuance requests were granted in FY 2001. The OAH has developed a well-deserved reputation
for discouraging “convenience” continuances in favor of those based on “good cause”. This
accounts for the high conclusion rate versus new settings (100%), despite a 5.8% increase in
caseload. The frequency of continuance, defined as the number of continuances granted
(1672) over the total number of cases first scheduled (7702), expressed as a percent, was
21.71%. The ratio of first settings (7429) to continued settings on the calendar (1698) was 1 to
0.23.

Comparison of Source of Continuance, FY 2001

5.24%
Continuance upon motion
of agency
Continuance upon motion
of non-agency party

94.76%

The following list indicates the number of continuances by agency. Indicated also are the continued settings in FY 2001, divided by those granted on motion of a non-agency party and those on
motion of the agency.

6

AGENCY

Continued Motion by nonagency party

Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System
Arizona Lottery
Board of Chiropractic Examiners
Board of Dental Examiners
Board of Medical Examiners
Board of Psychologist Examiners
Department of Administration
Department of Administration-Capitol Police Parking
Department of Building and Fire Safety
Department of Economic Security - CPS
Department of Environmental Quality
Department of Gaming
Department of Health Services
Department of Insurance
Department of Public Safety - Adult Care Clearance
Department of Public Safety - Student Transportation
Department of Racing
Department of Real Estate
Department of Revenue
Department of Water Resources
Department of Weights and Measures
Liquor Licenses and Control
Office of Alternative Fuel Recovery
Peace Officers Standards and Training
Registrar of Contractors
Secretary of State - Business Services Division
State Banking Department
State Board of Accountancy
State Board of Cosmetology
State Land Department
Structural Pest Control Commission

1161
1
1
1
3

Continued Motion by
agency party
25
1

1
3
11
17
29
7
1
28
22
1
1
2
9
30
6
12
1
3
234
1
5
10
1
4
4

3
3
13
3

1
17
3
1

2
2
13
1

2. Evaluation
a. Results of Public Evaluation
Since November 1996, the OAH has administered an evaluation procedure. At the conclusion of every
hearing, evaluations are handed out to four major groups of respondents: Represented private party; unrepresented private party; counsel for a private party; and counsel for the agency. The results are not disclosed
to the administrative law judge.

7

The respondents are asked to rate the following categories, on a scale of excellent, good, satisfactory, poor:
1. Attentiveness of ALJ
2. Effectiveness in explaining the hearing process
3. ALJ’s use of clear and neutral language
4. Impartiality
5. Effectiveness in dealing with the issues of the case
6. Sufficient space
7. Freedom from distractions
8. Questions responded to promptly and completely
9. Treated courteously

The results indicate that satisfaction is high among all groups, with those responding rating the
OAH excellent to good in all categories. An analysis of the unrepresented parties for a sample
quarter indicates that even among this most vulnerable group, the OAH is seen to be functioning
well.

All Responses FY 2001
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0

Q
ue
st
io
n
1
Q
ue
st
io
n
2
Q
ue
st
io
n
3
Q
ue
st
io
n
4
Q
ue
st
io
n
5
Q
ue
st
io
n
6
Q
ue
st
io
n
7
Q
ue
st
io
n
8
Q
ue
st
io
n
9

Excellent
Good
Average
Poor

Unrepresented Responses FY 2001
1200
1000
800

Excellent

600

Good
Average

400

Poor

200

Q
ue
st
io
n
1
Q
ue
st
io
n
2
Q
ue
st
io
n
3
Q
ue
st
io
n
4
Q
ue
st
io
n
5
Q
ue
st
io
n
6
Q
ue
st
io
n
7
Q
ue
st
io
n
8
Q
ue
st
io
n
9

0

8

The following diagram illustrates that 94.9% to 98.2% of participants evaluating the OAH process
responded that the OAH was excellent or good in all categories.

EVALUATION FY 2001
120.00%

98.22%

100.00%

97.57%

97.80%

97.16%

95.95%

98.04%

96.95%

96.59%

94.89%

RESPONSES

80.00%

EXCELLENT or GOOD
60.00%

AVERAGE
POOR

40.00%

20.00%
2.73%

2.04%
0.37%

4.25%

3.19%

4.05%

1.87%

0.59%

0.45%

6.77%
0.83%

1.71%

4.17%

5.23%
0.18%

3.00%

0.77%

0.39%

0.00%
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

QUESTIONS

b. Incidence of Rehearing/Appeal
In FY 2001, the rehearing rate (defined as rehearings scheduled over cases concluded) was
.57% The judicial appeal rate (defined as judicial appeals taken over cases concluded) was
2.18%. As reflected in the following diagram, rehearings and judicial appeals in FY 2001 were
relatively rare. Both were concentrated at the Registrar of Contractors. Registrar cases are
primarily contests between two private litigants (homeowner/contractor; contractor/subcontractor).

Judicial Appeals and Rehearings FY 2001
70
60
60

50

Cases

40

Appeals
Rehearings
30
24

24

20

10

er
in
m
xa
lE

ta
en
D
of

Bo

ar

d

Bo
e
at
St

s

y
og
ol
et
m
os

of
d
ar

nv
fE
to

en
tm
ar
ep

C

nm
iro

to
en
tm
ar
ep
D

l
lQ
ta
en

ns
fI

D
g
in
nk
Ba
D

2

1

ua

ce
ur

ar

C
e
at
St

1

an

tm

tro
on

-C
d
an
es
ns
ce
Li
or

Li

qu

en

l

P

s
Se
ic
m
no
co
fE

to
en
tm
ar

ep
D

2 1

1

rit
cu

Ex
pr
ro

hi
C
of
d
ar

Bo

5
1

y

am

in

tra
tic
ac

ca
ni
ch
Te

of
d
ar
Bo

er

tio

fe
eg
lR

d
an
g
in
ld
ui

fB
to
en
tm
ar
ep
D

iz
Ar

9

3

1

is

re
Fi

Lo
a
on
iz
Ar

ar
ep
D

1

Sa

ry
tte

tra
in
dm

fA
to
en
tm

to
en
tm
ar

D

ep

is

ou

fW

tm
ar
ep
D

tio

es
rc

tio
at

en

er

to

R

fE

es

du

ct
tra
on
fC

ro
is
eg

R

ca

or

s

ys
tS
en
m
in
ta

tra

on
tC
os
C
e
ar
C
lth
ea
H

2

1

on

a

2

1

n

te

0

1

ep

5
1

IV.

Acceptance of ALJ Decisions by Agencies

1. Agency Action
Agency acceptance of the OAH decisions is very high. 94.12% of all decisions acted upon by
the agencies (that is, excluding .42% of decisions certified as final due to agency inaction) are
accepted without modification. Agency acceptance was 97.19% if viewed from the vantage point
of acceptance of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the core function of the administrative law judge. The vast majority (77.18%) of modifications were in the Recommended Order
(penalty portion).

Agency Re sponse FY 2001

A m ended
F inding/C onclusio ns o fLaw
o nly
0.92%

R ejected
1.89%

A m ended O rderonly
3.07%

A ccepted witho utM o dification
94.12%

The following chart reports the number of cases in the various categories of agency response.

7000

6223

6000
5000
4000

125

28

Certified

61

Rejected

203

Amended
Finding/Conclusions
of Law only

2000

Amended Order only

3000

1000
Accepted without
Modification

0

10

The following chart reports the breakdown by agency. This illustrates that modifications and
rejections are few relative to the decisions accepted.
Accept

Acupuncture Board of Examiners
Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System
Arizona Lottery
Arizona Works-Maximus-(DES)
Board of Appraisal
Board of Behavioral Health Examiners
Board of Chiropractic Examiners
Board of Dental Examiners
Board of Medical Examiners
Board of Psychologist Examiners
Board of Technical Registration
Citizens Clean Elections Commission
Department of Administration
Department of Administration-Capitol Police Parking
Department of Building and Fire Safety
Department of Economic Security - CPS
Department of Environmental Quality
Department of Gaming
Department of Health Services
Department of Insurance
Department of Public Safety - Adult Care Clearance
Department of Public Safety - Concealed Weapons Permit Unit
Department of Public Safety - Student Transportation
Department of Racing
Department of Real Estate
Department of Water Resources
Liquor Licenses and Control
Office of Alternative Fuel Recovery
Peace Officers Standards and Training
Registrar of Contractors
State Banking Department
State Board of Accountancy
State Board of Cosmetology
State Board of Nursing
State Land Department
Structural Pest Control Commission

11

1
3802
4
1
1
4
3
2
6
1
2
15
252
137
143
116
2
212
70
22
3
9
11
29
1
60
7
1
1236
7
32
14
12
3
3

Modify
Penalty

Modify
Fact/law

31

33

3
2
1
1
5

Reject

102

1
1

6

1
3

21

3

1

1
1

1
1
2

139

4

1
1
6

1

16

In FY 2001, OAH rendered a decision contrary in whole or in part to an agency’s original position in
42.55% of cases. Agency acceptance of contrary decisions was high (94.03%).

Recom mendations Contrary to Original Agency Position FY 2001

ALJ Recom m endation
Contrary in W hole orin Part
42.55%

ALJ Recom m endation
Affirm s
57.45%

The following two charts show a breakdown by agency of its response to contrary decisions and the
relative numbers and percentages of the responses.

AHCCCS
Building and Fire Safety
Administration
Banking
DPS - Bus
Board of Medical Examiners
Board of Dental Examiners
Capitol Police Parking
Department of Economic Security - CPS
Gaming
Department of Health Services
Department of Insurance
Liqor Licenses and Control
Department of Real Estate
Registrar of Contractors
Board of Nursing
Citizen’s Clean Elections

Accepts

Amends
Rejects
Findings/Law

1092
23
1
1

10

84

Amends
Order Only
23
6

1
1
1
179
18

1

6

3
8
11
4
21

1

1
1
1

1
1

2

12

1
3
1

Agency Response to Contrary Recommendations FY 2001
1600
1400

1366

1200
Cases

1000
800
600
400
200

90

17

35

0
Agency Accepts Contrary Agency Amends Findings Agency Rejects Contrary
Recommendation 90.58% Accepts Order 1.13%
Recommendation 5.97%

Agency Amends Order
Accepts Findings of
Fact/Law 2.32%

2. Agency Inaction With Subsequent OAH Certification of Finality
Beginning August 21, 1998, the OAH was required to certify its recommended order as the final
administrative decision if OAH has not received the agency, board or commission’s action
accepting, modifying or rejecting the recommended decision within 30 days of transmission.
See A.R.S. §41-1092.08(D). Special rules apply if the board or commission meets monthly or
less frequently. See A.R.S. §41-1092.08(D). In FY 2001, 28 recommended decisions were
certified as final administrative decisions.

Department of Building and Fire Safety
Department of Economic Security - CPS
Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System
Arizona Lottery
Department of Water Resources
Arizona Works-Maximus-(DES)
Department of Public Safety - Adult Care Clearance
Secretary of State - Business Services Division
State Banking Department
Department of Administration
Board of Medical Examiners
State Schools for the Deaf and the Blind
State Land Department

9
5
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

13

V. Motions for Change of Administrative Law
Judge Granted Pursuant to A.R.S. §41-1092.07
Pursuant to A.R.S. §41-1092.01(C)(9) (b), the OAH reports that 204 motions to the OAH Director
for change of judge were filed pursuant to A.R.S. §41-1092.07(A) for bias or prejudice. No motion
was granted.

VI.

Violations of A.R.S. §41-1009

Pursuant to A.R.S. §41-1092.01(C)(9) (c), the OAH reports that it has no knowledge of violations of
A.R.S. §41-1009 by any agency.

VII. Recommendations for Changes in the
Administrative Procedures Act
Uniformity:
The regulated community has long complained about inconsistent procedures among the
various agencies. The following recommendations are meant to point to the areas where
greater consistency can be accomplished:
1. Establish uniform standards for appeal rights notice.
Currently there are no standards for how, and with what degree of specificity, appeal
rights should be communicated to parties once the agency has acted.
2. Establish uniform basis for rehearing.
Parties must research the specific rules of each agency, board or commission to
determine the bases for rehearing since there is little uniformity. Standardizing and
recapitulating bases in Title 41 would make the process easier, particularly for the
unrepresented.
3. Expand the right to settlement conferences to include “contested cases”.
A.R.S. §41-1092.03 provides that appellants to “appealable agency actions” be entitled
to settlement conferences with an agency representative. No such right exists for
“contested cases”, which include most disciplinary proceedings. Such a conference
may be beneficial in expediting disposition of cases.
4. Conform Rehearing and Appeal Rules.
Currently parties have 30 days from service of an agency’s final action, presumed after
5 days of mailing to the party’s last known address, to request a rehearing under A.R.S.
§41-1092.09(A)(1) and A.R.S. §41-1092.09(C). However, pursuant to A.R.S. §12904(A), parties have 35 days to file an appeal to Superior Court upon service, presumed after 5 days of mailing to the party’s last known address. Conforming the time
limits for filing appeals and requesting rehearings will simplify the process by eliminating varying time limits for parties to act on final orders and will allow agencies to frame
the effective dates of their final orders to a single date.

14

VIII. Recommendation for Changes or
Improvements in Agency Practice with Respect
to the Administrative Procedures Act
Statutory Guidance in Definition of “Physical Injury” under A.R.S.
§8-201
As of June 30, 2001, the OAH has concluded in excess of 969 cases under A.R.S. §8-811. The
statutory scheme provides that those who are facing substantiation of reports of child abuse or
neglect, and therefore deposit of these reports in the State’s Central Registry for 25 years, be
accorded the right to have the State demonstrate “probable cause” before the OAH’s independent tribunals. Experience has shown that the current scheme is inadequate or uncertain in a
key area requiring statutory clarification.
Title 8 does not define “physical injury” as it applies to abuse under A.R.S. §8-201. One position
is that the statute is one of strict liability. Under that viewpoint, any physical injury, if observeable,
constitutes abuse. This is true regardless of how minimal, or whether it is sustained by a child
as a consequence of parental discipline or attempts to control the behavior of a child, or even as
the result of accident. Another viewpoint sees the terms, “infliction of or allowing” physical injury
found in A.R.S. §8-201 as requiring some minimal bad intent, thus allowing reasonable mitigation
in cases of manifest accident. Still another position applies the defenses to assault found in
A.R.S. §13-403 to the concept of “physical injury” to recognize some leeway in parental discipline.
In the absence of clear standards, some Administrative Law Judges apply the definition of
“physical injury” found in A.R.S. §13-3623(A)(4), or use it for guidance. These judges are generally uncomfortable using the Title 13 statute, but at the same time feel obligated to have at least
some statutory foundation for their determinations as to when there has been “abuse” as defined
in Title 8. In either of these situations, Administrative Law Judges may or may not apply the
defenses of A.R.S. §13-403, depending on whether abuse is considered strict liability. Other
Administrative Law Judges, finding the use of the criminal statutes inappropriate, because of lack
of notice to the appellant, do not apply either A.R.S. §13-3623(A)(4) or A.R.S. §13-403. In many
cases physical injury is so manifest, and so obviously the result of intentional unjustified acts,
that the lack of definition presents no difficulty. However, many situations which are not obvious
cases of abuse can become subjective ad hoc decisions. Likewise, similar facts may be viewed
differently by different Administrative Law Judges, resulting in opposing orders.

15

APPENDICES

1. Report of the Private Right of Action
A.R.S. §41-1092.12
2. Substantive Policy Statements
3. Newsletters

16

Contents
I. Introduction and Overview………………………………………………………...................1
II. Continued Development of the Office....................................................………………........2
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Development of Administrative Law Judge Cadres...............................................2
Report of the Private Right of Action A.R.S. §41-1092.12 ................................ 2
Substantive Policy Statements .......................................................................... 2
Newsletter ............................................................................................................ 2
Externship ........................................................................................................... 2

III. Summary of Agency use of OAH Services .................................................................. 3
1. Case Management ............................................................................................. 3
a. Breakdown of Cases Filed by Agency (FY 2001) ............................................. 3
b. Number of Cases Filed versus Cases Concluded ............................................ 4
c. Timeline of Case Management ........................................................................ 5
d. Incidence of Continuance ................................................................................. 6
2. Evaluation ............................................................................................................ 7
a. Results of Public Evaluation .............................................................................. 7
b. Incidence of Rehearing/Appeal .......................................................................... 9
IV. Acceptance of ALJ Decisions by Agency................................................................ 10
1. Agency Action ................................................................................................... 10
2. Agency Inaction ................................................................................................ 13
V. Motions for Change of Administrative Law Judge Granted Pursuant to
A.R.S. §41-1092.07 ...................................................................................................... 14
VI. Violations of A.R.S. §41-1009 ................................................................................... 14
VII. Recommendations for Changes in the Administrative Procedures Act ............. 14
1. Establish uniform standards for appeal rights notice.................................... 14
2. Establish uniform basis for rehearing ............................................................. 14
3. Expand the right to settlement conferences to include “contested cases”. 14
4. Conform Rehearing and Appeal Rules ............................................................ 14
VIII. Recommendation for Changes or Improvements in Agency Practice with
Respect to the Administrative Procedures Act .................................................... 15
Statutory Guidance in Definition of “Physical Injury” under A.R.S. §8-201 ...... 15
Appendices ....................................................................................................................... 16
1. Report of the Private Right of Action A.R.S. §41-1092.12
2. Substantive Policy Statements
3. Newsletters
17