Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 23
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1021 (2026)

Right of employee to compensation

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Every employee coming within the provisions of this chapter who is injured, and the dependents of every such employee who is killed by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, wherever the injury occurred, unless the injury was purposely self-inflicted, shall be entitled to receive and shall be paid such compensation for loss sustained on account of the injury or death, such medical, nurse and hospital services and medicines, and such amount of funeral expenses in the event of death, as are provided by this chapter.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 183 cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1959–2026 · leading case: Grammatico v. Indus. Comm'n, 90 P.3d 211 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Grammatico v. Indus. Comm'n, 90 P.3d 211 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 114× “") section 23-1021 to provide that if an employer implements a drug-free workplace policy, a worker who suffers a workplace injury and subsequently tests positive for alcohol impairment or illegal drug use is not eligible for workers' compensation benefits unless one of three…”
Grammatico v. Indus. Comm'n, 117 P.3d 786 (Ariz. 2005). · cites it 38× “§ 23-1021(D) and A.R.S. § 23-1021(0 violate Article 18, Section 8, as Grammatico and Komalestewa contend.”
Ford v. Revlon, Inc., 734 P.2d 580 (Ariz. 1987). · cites it 20× “Under Arizona's case law and statutes, an "accident" is any work-connected injury between the extremes of a "purposely self-inflicted" injury (A.R.S. § 23-1021) and one inflicted by the employer acting "knowingly and purposely with the direct object of injuring" the employee.”
Komalestewa v. Indus. Comm'n, 99 P.3d 26 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 74× “§ 23-1021, adding subsection (C), to provide: An employee’s injury or death shall not be considered a personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment and is not compensable pursuant to this chapter if the impairment of the employee is due to the…”
Fireman's Fund Ins. v. Indus. Comm'n, 579 P.2d 555 (Ariz. 1978). · cites it 12× “A.R.S. § 23-1021(B). Today's approval of the award for a mental condition brought about by the gradual build-up of emotional stress over a period of time, without an injury causing event, paves the way for tomorrow's abuses of the workmen's compensation system.”
Murphy v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 774 P.2d 221 (Ariz. 1989). · cites it 14× “01(B) did not apply, but instead that the general statute A.R.S. § 23-1021 controlled. Second, the court of *484 appeals held that the same standard that applied in A.”
Circle K Store 1131 v. Indus. Comm'n, 796 P.2d 893 (Ariz. 1990). · cites it 6× “Shoemaker (claimant), an employee of Circle K Store # 1131 (Circle K), sustained injuries as the result of a fall that occurred next to a dumpster in the Circle K parking lot. She filed a worker's compensation claim and was denied benefits.”
Whitmire v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 359 F. Supp. 3d 761 (D. Ariz. 2019). · cites it 3× “" A.R.S. § 23-1021. Here, Plaintiff exercised her right to receive compensation under the workers' compensation statutes by reporting her "accident and the injury resulting from the accident" to her employer on May 21, 2016 in accordance with A.”
Glodo v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 955 P.2d 15 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 6× “See A.R.S. § 23-1021(A). An intentional act of violence that produces an injury that should be expected is not accidental.”
Pottinger v. Indus. Comm'n, 527 P.2d 1232 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 12× “(A.R.S. § 23-1021). The Commission found the act of smoking to be a "personal" act which did not arise out of his employment.”
Rowland v. Great States Ins., 20 P.3d 1158 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 23-1021(A) (injured employees and dependents of injured employees "shall be entitled to receive and shall be paid such compensation for loss sustained on account of the injury or death”).”
Lane v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 178 P.3d 516 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 5× “” ¶ 8 After the hearing, the ALJ issued an award finding Lane’s claim noncompensable because he had not been acting as a peace officer at the time he was injured and therefore implicitly concluding his injury did not “aris[e] out of and in the course of his employment” as…”
Show all 183 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1021(0) — 1 case
Grammatico v. Indus. Comm'n, 117 P.3d 786 (Ariz. 2005). “§ 23-1021(D) and A.R.S. § 23-1021(0 violate Article 18, Section 8, as Grammatico and Komalestewa contend.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1021(A) — 63 cases
Grammatico v. Indus. Comm'n, 90 P.3d 211 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). “") section 23-1021 to provide that if an employer implements a drug-free workplace policy, a worker who suffers a workplace injury and subsequently tests positive for alcohol impairment or illegal drug use is not eligible for workers' compensation benefits unless one of three…”
Circle K Store 1131 v. Indus. Comm'n, 796 P.2d 893 (Ariz. 1990). “Shoemaker (claimant), an employee of Circle K Store # 1131 (Circle K), sustained injuries as the result of a fall that occurred next to a dumpster in the Circle K parking lot. She filed a worker's compensation claim and was denied benefits.”
Glodo v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 955 P.2d 15 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). “See A.R.S. § 23-1021(A). An intentional act of violence that produces an injury that should be expected is not accidental.”
Rowland v. Great States Ins., 20 P.3d 1158 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). “See A.R.S. § 23-1021(A) (injured employees and dependents of injured employees "shall be entitled to receive and shall be paid such compensation for loss sustained on account of the injury or death”).”
Lane v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 178 P.3d 516 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “” ¶ 8 After the hearing, the ALJ issued an award finding Lane’s claim noncompensable because he had not been acting as a peace officer at the time he was injured and therefore implicitly concluding his injury did not “aris[e] out of and in the course of his employment” as…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1021(A)(1983) — 2 cases
Breitenbach v. N.B. Handy Co., 784 A.2d 569 (Md. 2001).
Beasley v. Indus. Comm'n, 858 P.2d 666 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1021(B) — 7 cases
Ford v. Revlon, Inc., 734 P.2d 580 (Ariz. 1987). “Under Arizona's case law and statutes, an "accident" is any work-connected injury between the extremes of a "purposely self-inflicted" injury (A.R.S. § 23-1021) and one inflicted by the employer acting "knowingly and purposely with the direct object of injuring" the employee.”
Fireman's Fund Ins. v. Indus. Comm'n, 579 P.2d 555 (Ariz. 1978). “A.R.S. § 23-1021(B). Today's approval of the award for a mental condition brought about by the gradual build-up of emotional stress over a period of time, without an injury causing event, paves the way for tomorrow's abuses of the workmen's compensation system.”
Canyon Ambulatory Surgery Ctr. v. SCF Arizona, 239 P.3d 733 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
Hughes v. Indus. Comm'n, 933 P.2d 1218 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).
Moretto v. Samaritan Health Sys., 8 P.3d 380 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1021(C) — 3 cases
Grammatico v. Indus. Comm'n, 117 P.3d 786 (Ariz. 2005). “§ 23-1021(D) and A.R.S. § 23-1021(0 violate Article 18, Section 8, as Grammatico and Komalestewa contend.”
Komalestewa v. Indus. Comm'n, 99 P.3d 26 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). “§ 23-1021, adding subsection (C), to provide: An employee’s injury or death shall not be considered a personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment and is not compensable pursuant to this chapter if the impairment of the employee is due to the…”
Komalestewa v. ica/stoneville pedigree/wausau Ins (Ariz. 2005).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1021(D) — 4 cases
Grammatico v. Indus. Comm'n, 90 P.3d 211 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). “") section 23-1021 to provide that if an employer implements a drug-free workplace policy, a worker who suffers a workplace injury and subsequently tests positive for alcohol impairment or illegal drug use is not eligible for workers' compensation benefits unless one of three…”
Grammatico v. Indus. Comm'n, 117 P.3d 786 (Ariz. 2005). “§ 23-1021(D) and A.R.S. § 23-1021(0 violate Article 18, Section 8, as Grammatico and Komalestewa contend.”
Komalestewa v. Indus. Comm'n, 99 P.3d 26 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). “§ 23-1021, adding subsection (C), to provide: An employee’s injury or death shall not be considered a personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment and is not compensable pursuant to this chapter if the impairment of the employee is due to the…”
Komalestewa v. ica/stoneville pedigree/wausau Ins (Ariz. 2005).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1021(D)(1) — 3 cases
Grammatico v. Indus. Comm'n, 90 P.3d 211 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). “") section 23-1021 to provide that if an employer implements a drug-free workplace policy, a worker who suffers a workplace injury and subsequently tests positive for alcohol impairment or illegal drug use is not eligible for workers' compensation benefits unless one of three…”
Komalestewa v. Indus. Comm'n, 99 P.3d 26 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). “§ 23-1021, adding subsection (C), to provide: An employee’s injury or death shall not be considered a personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment and is not compensable pursuant to this chapter if the impairment of the employee is due to the…”
Komalestewa v. ica/stoneville pedigree/wausau Ins (Ariz. 2005).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1021(D)(2) — 1 case
Grammatico v. Indus. Comm'n, 90 P.3d 211 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). “") section 23-1021 to provide that if an employer implements a drug-free workplace policy, a worker who suffers a workplace injury and subsequently tests positive for alcohol impairment or illegal drug use is not eligible for workers' compensation benefits unless one of three…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1021(D)(l) — 2 cases
Grammatico v. Indus. Comm'n, 90 P.3d 211 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). “") section 23-1021 to provide that if an employer implements a drug-free workplace policy, a worker who suffers a workplace injury and subsequently tests positive for alcohol impairment or illegal drug use is not eligible for workers' compensation benefits unless one of three…”
Grammatico v. Indus. Comm'n, 117 P.3d 786 (Ariz. 2005). “§ 23-1021(D) and A.R.S. § 23-1021(0 violate Article 18, Section 8, as Grammatico and Komalestewa contend.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1021(E) — 1 case
Grammatico v. Indus. Comm'n, 90 P.3d 211 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). “") section 23-1021 to provide that if an employer implements a drug-free workplace policy, a worker who suffers a workplace injury and subsequently tests positive for alcohol impairment or illegal drug use is not eligible for workers' compensation benefits unless one of three…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1021(H)(2) — 3 cases
Grammatico v. Indus. Comm'n, 117 P.3d 786 (Ariz. 2005). “§ 23-1021(D) and A.R.S. § 23-1021(0 violate Article 18, Section 8, as Grammatico and Komalestewa contend.”
Komalestewa v. Indus. Comm'n, 99 P.3d 26 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). “§ 23-1021, adding subsection (C), to provide: An employee’s injury or death shall not be considered a personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment and is not compensable pursuant to this chapter if the impairment of the employee is due to the…”
Komalestewa v. ica/stoneville pedigree/wausau Ins (Ariz. 2005).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.