Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1041 (2026)

Basis for computing compensation; definition

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. Every employee of an employer within the provisions of this chapter who is injured by accident arising out of and in the course of employment, or the employee's dependents in the event of the employee's death, shall receive the compensation fixed in this chapter on the basis of the employee's average monthly wage at the time of injury.

B. If the injured or killed employee has not been continuously employed for the period of thirty days immediately preceding the injury or death, the average monthly wage shall be such amount as, having regard to the previous wage of the injured employee or of other employees of the same or most similar class working in the same or most similar employment in the same or neighboring locality, reasonably represents the monthly earning capacity of the injured employee in the employment in which the injured employee is working at the time of the accident.

C. If the employee is working under a contract by which the employee is guaranteed an amount per diem or per month, notwithstanding the contract price for such labor, the employee or the employee's subordinates or employees working under the terms of such contract or the employee's or their dependents in case of death shall be entitled to receive compensation on the basis only of the guaranteed wage as set out in the contract of employment, whether paid on a per diem or monthly basis, but in no event shall the basis be less than the wages paid to employees for similar work not under contract.

D. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, in computing the average monthly wage there shall be excluded from such computation all wages or other compensation for services in excess of:

1. One thousand three hundred twenty-five dollars per month for employees injured before January 1, 1988.

2. One thousand six hundred fifty dollars per month for employees injured from and after December 31, 1987 but before July 1, 1989.

3. One thousand eight hundred dollars per month for employees injured from and after June 30, 1989 but before July 1, 1991.

4. Two thousand one hundred dollars per month for employees injured from and after June 30, 1991 but before August 6, 1999.

5. Two thousand four hundred dollars per month for employees injured on or after August 6, 1999 but before January 1, 2008.

6. Three thousand dollars per month for employees injured from and after December 31, 2007 but before January 1, 2009.

7. Three thousand six hundred dollars per month for employees injured from and after December 31, 2008 but before January 1, 2010.

8. The amount adopted by the commission under subsection E for employees injured on or after January 1, 2010.

E. For purposes of subsection D, paragraph 8, the commission, not later than August 1 of each calendar year, beginning August 1, 2009, shall adopt an amount that adjusts the amount from the prior year to reflect the annual percentage increase in the bureau of labor statistics employment cost index for the prior calendar year. The amount adopted by the commission shall be effective for the following calendar year and shall apply to all injuries occurring during that calendar year. In adopting the amount under this subsection, the commission shall not decrease the amount from the prior year or increase the amount more than five per cent from the prior year.

F. Prior to a determination of the average monthly wage, compensation shall be paid on a basis of a minimum monthly wage of two hundred dollars for employees eighteen years of age or over.

G. For the purposes of this section, "monthly wage" means the average wage paid during and over the month in which the employee is killed or injured.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 122 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1956–2025 · leading case: Senor T's Restaurant v. Indus. Comm'n, 641 P.2d 848 (Ariz. 1982).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Douglas v. montecito/Saf. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 12× “” A.R.S. § 23-1041(G). Thus, a worker’s average monthly wage is presumed to be 1 At oral argument before this court, counsel for both parties agreed that Douglas’ average monthly wage should be determined under § 23-1041(A), rather than § 23-1041(B) (stating that if the employee…”

Cantrell v. kroger/kroger (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 4× “” A.R.S. § 23-1041(G). This statute creates a presumptive 30-day wage period for determining the AMW.”

Coburn v. Larry H miller/wcf (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2×

Free v. westat/liberty (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2×

Go daddy/berkley v. Sebion (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2×

Gonzalez v. interstate/xl Specialty (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4×

westat/liberty v. Free (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 3×

Storey v. mesa/york (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “See A.R.S. § 23-1041(G) (2016); Carr v. Indus.”

Wozniak v. Indus. Comm'n, 359 P.3d 1014 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 13× “¶ 10 Determining a claimant’s average monthly wage is governed by A.R.S. § 23-1041, which provides in pertinent part: A.”

Julie Munoz v. Sonic Restaurants 10 & Hartford Accident & Indem./gallagher Bassett, 318 P.3d 439 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 3× “¶ 10 The determination of a claimant’s average monthly wage is governed by AR.S. § 23-1041, which provides in pertinent part: *149 A.”

Berryhill v. Indus. Comm'n, 307 P.3d 1030 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 10× “1 DISCUSSION ¶ 6 The determination of a claimant’s average monthly wage is governed by A.R.S. § 23-1041 (West 2013), which provides in pertinent part: A.”

Sanchez v. Potomac Abatement, Inc., 8 A.3d 737 (Md. 2010).

Show all 122 citing cases →

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1041(0) — 1 case

Fletcher v. Indus. Comm'n, 587 P.2d 757 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1041(A) — 16 cases

Wiley v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 847 P.2d 595 (Ariz. 1993).

Cnty. of Maricopa v. Indus. Comm'n of Arizona, 699 P.2d 389 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).

Scott v. Indus. Comm'n, 593 P.2d 919 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978).

Reavis v. Indus. Comm'n, 995 P.2d 716 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).

Pena v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 683 P.2d 309 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1041(B) — 11 cases

Wiley v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 847 P.2d 595 (Ariz. 1993).

Pena v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 683 P.2d 309 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).

Mail Boxes v. Indus. Comm'n, 888 P.2d 777 (Ariz. 1995).

Gamez v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 141 P.3d 794 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).

Bratz v. Indus. Comm'n, 873 P.2d 697 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1041(C) — 2 cases

Fletcher v. Indus. Comm'n, 587 P.2d 757 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978).

Wozniak v. Indus. Comm'n, 359 P.3d 1014 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “¶ 10 Determining a claimant’s average monthly wage is governed by A.R.S. § 23-1041, which provides in pertinent part: A.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1041(D) — 6 cases

Senor T's Restaurant v. Indus. Comm'n, 641 P.2d 848 (Ariz. 1982).

Wiley v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 847 P.2d 595 (Ariz. 1993).

Elco Veterinary Supply v. Indus. Comm'n, 668 P.2d 889 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).

Carr v. Indus. Comm'n, 3 P.3d 1084 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).

Lazarus v. Indus. Comm'n, 947 P.2d 875 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1041(D)(4) — 1 case

Warren v. Indus. Comm'n, 39 P.3d 534 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1041(E) — 11 cases

McPeak v. Indus. Comm'n, 741 P.2d 699 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).

Wiedmaier v. Indus. Comm'n, 589 P.2d 1 (Ariz. 1978).

Wiley v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 847 P.2d 595 (Ariz. 1993).

Reavis v. Indus. Comm'n, 995 P.2d 716 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).

W.F. Dunn, Sr. & Son v. Indus. Comm'n, 773 P.2d 241 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1041(E)(1) — 1 case

AJ Goulder Elec. v. INDUS. COM'N, 928 P.2d 687 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1041(E)(2) — 1 case

Special Fund Div. v. Arizona Dep't of Transp., 8 P.3d 412 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1041(E)(4) — 3 cases

Reavis v. Indus. Comm'n, 995 P.2d 716 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).

A.J. Goulder Elec. v. Indus. Comm'n, 928 P.2d 687 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).

AJ Goulder Elec. v. INDUS. COM'N, 928 P.2d 687 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1041(E)(b) — 1 case

Reavis v. Indus. Comm'n, 995 P.2d 716 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1041(E)(l) — 1 case

A.J. Goulder Elec. v. Indus. Comm'n, 928 P.2d 687 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1041(F) — 1 case

Parra v. Pedus, Transcontinental Ins. Co., 141 P.3d 745 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1041(G) — 4 cases

Berryhill v. Indus. Comm'n, 307 P.3d 1030 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). “1 DISCUSSION ¶ 6 The determination of a claimant’s average monthly wage is governed by A.R.S. § 23-1041 (West 2013), which provides in pertinent part: A.”

Storey v. mesa/york (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). “See A.R.S. § 23-1041(G) (2016); Carr v. Indus.”

Douglas v. montecito/Saf. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025). “” A.R.S. § 23-1041(G). Thus, a worker’s average monthly wage is presumed to be 1 At oral argument before this court, counsel for both parties agreed that Douglas’ average monthly wage should be determined under § 23-1041(A), rather than § 23-1041(B) (stating that if the employee…”

Cantrell v. kroger/kroger (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025). “” A.R.S. § 23-1041(G). This statute creates a presumptive 30-day wage period for determining the AMW.”

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.