Roseberry v. Industrial Commission
In Roseberry v. Industrial Commission, 113 Ariz. 66, 546 P.2d 802 (1976), which involved a reopening issue, our supreme court determined sua sponte that the Commission retained jurisdiction over Roseberry's claim, even after the carrier's notice of claim status terminating Roseberry's temporary benefits became final, because the notice was "void on its face." Id.
The court did not specifically explain why it found the notice void, but Roseberry's facts reflect that the void notice was accompanied by a medical report that directly contradicted the notice's determination.
Subsequently, Roseberry has been cited for the proposition that a notice is void if it directly contradicts the supporting information upon which it is based. Velez v. Indus. Comm'n, 174 Ariz. 307, 312, 848 P.2d 886, 891 (App. 1993).