Assigned to JUD                                                                                                                              FOR COMMITTEE

ARIZONA STATE SENATE

Fifty-Third Legislature, First Regular Session

FACT SHEET FOR S.B. 1072

administrative decisions; scope of review

Purpose

Requires the court, in an action to review a final administrative decision of an agency, to decide all questions of fact and law without regard to previous determinations made in administrative hearings.

Background

Statute outlines appeals processes regarding agencies, boards, commissions, departments and officers authorized to exercise rulemaking powers or to adjudicate contested cases. For example, if a state agency takes an enforcement action against a person, such as suspending a license, statute enumerates the process for the person to appeal the suspension. Generally, the first appeal is an internal review within the agency. The next step is usually through the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). After OAH, a person may appeal under the Administrative Review Act to the superior court, which is limited to a review of the final decision of the administrative agency (A.R.S. § 12-905).

An action to review a final administrative decision must be commenced by filing a notice of appeal within 35 days of the date when a copy of the decision sought to be reviewed is served on the party affected (A.R.S. § 12-904). A copy of the notice of appeal must be served on the agency at its principal office and on all other parties to the proceeding before the agency (A.R.S. § 12-906). It must contain a statement of the findings and decision sought to be reviewed (A.R.S. § 12-909). If requested, within 30 days after filing the notice of appeal, the court must hold an evidentiary hearing. Statute allows the court to affirm, reverse, modify or vacate and remand the agency action. However, the court must affirm the agency action unless, after reviewing the administrative record and supplementing evidence at the evidentiary hearing, the court concludes that the action is: 1) not supported by substantial evidence; 2) contrary to law; 3) arbitrary and capricious; or 4) an abuse of discretion (A.R.S. § 12-910).  S.B. 1072 eliminates that requirement and instead requires the superior court to decide all questions of fact and law without regard to any previous determinations. This requirement applies in any action for judicial review of an agency action authorized by law. A person may appeal the decision, order, judgment or decree of the superior court to the court of appeals and Supreme Court (A.R.S. § 12-913).

The fiscal impact related to this measure is unknown.

Provisions

1. Removes the requirement for the court, in an action to review a final administrative decision, to affirm the agency action unless the court concludes the action:

a) is not supported by substantial evidence;

b) is contrary to law;

c) is arbitrary and capricious; or

d) is an abuse of discretion.

2. Requires the court in such actions instead to decide all questions of fact and law, including the interpretation of a constitutional or statutory provision or rule adopted by an agency, without regard to any previous determination that may have been made on the question in an administrative hearing.

3. Applies the above requirement to any action for judicial review of an agency action authorized by law.

4. Becomes effective on the general effective date.

Prepared by Senate Research

January 24, 2017

AW/rr