Arizona Revised Statutes
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1042 (2026)
Basis for computing average monthly wage of minor permanently incapacitated
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
If it is established by competent evidence that an injured employee is under eighteen years of age and his incapacity is permanent, his average monthly earning capacity shall be deemed, within the limits fixed by sections 23-1041 and 23-1046, to be the monthly amount which under ordinary circumstances he would probably be able to earn at the age of eighteen years in the occupation in which he was employed at the time of injury, or in any occupation to which he would reasonably have been promoted if he had not been injured. If the probable earnings at the age of eighteen years cannot be reasonably determined, his average earnings shall be based upon four dollars per day for a six-day week.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1966–2006 · leading case: Maricopa Cnty. Neighborhood Youth Corps v. Indus. Comm'n, 548 P.2d 844 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976).
Maricopa Cnty. Neighborhood Youth Corps v. Indus. Comm'n, 548 P.2d 844 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976). “On this review of an award entered by the Industrial Commission in a workmen's compensation proceeding, the issue presented is one of first impression for this jurisdiction, namely, when applying A.R.S. § 23-1042 to a situation involving a minor who has sustained a permanently…”
Herman v. Indus. Comm'n, 414 P.2d 134 (Ariz. 1966). “15, and failed to follow A.R.S. § 23-1042. “§ 23-1042. Basis for computing average monthly wage of minor permanently incapacitated *314 “If it is established by competent evidence that an injured employee is under twenty-one years of age and his incapacity is permanent, his…”
Gamez v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 141 P.3d 794 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). “§ 23-901(5)(e); "[a]ny person placed in level three or four of the Arizona works program, in on-the-job evaluation or in on-the-job training under the department of economic security's temporary assistance for needy families program or vocational rehabilitation program," A.”
Wiley v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 847 P.2d 595 (Ariz. 1993). “§ 23-1041(B) (monthly wage for short-term employment); A.R.S. § 23-1042 (monthly wage for permanently incapacitated minors).”
Beasley v. Indus. Comm'n, 489 P.2d 57 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1971). “In this appeal by writ of certiorari, the Court is asked to determine at what point in time a minor claimant is entitled to the probable average monthly wage provided by A.R.S. § 23-1042 entitled “Basis for computing average monthly wage of minor permanently incapacitated.”
Rasmussen v. Indus. Comm'n, 783 P.2d 830 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). “Here the conflict revolves around the interpretation of A.R.S. § 23-1042, which provides the basis for computing the average monthly wage of a permanently disabled minor.”
Hardware Mut. Cas. Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 508 P.2d 1168 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1973). “The fact that respondent employee was a minor, “sui juris under our workmen’s compensation act”, Herman v.”
Liberty Mut. Ins. v. W. Cas. & Sur. Co., 527 P.2d 1091 (Ariz. 1974). “By the provisions of Article 8 of Chapter 6, §§ 23-1042 through 23-1047, procedures have been established by the Legislature by which the Industrial Commission must determine the amount of compensation to be awarded to injured workmen.”
Beasley v. Indus. Comm'n, 499 P.2d 106 (Ariz. 1972). “Resolution of the question involves interpretation of A.R.S. § 23-1042, which provides : “If it is established by competent evidence that an injured employee is under twenty-one years of age and his incapacity is permanent, his average monthly earning capacity shall be deemed,…”
Herman v. Indus. Comm'n, 411 P.2d 56 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1966). “Petitioner alleged that his average monthly wage should have been computed under A.R.S. § 23-1042, the statute which sets forth the basis for computing the average monthly wage of minors permanently incapacitated.”
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.