A. For temporary partial disability there shall be paid during the period thereof sixty-six and two-thirds percent of the difference between the wages earned before the injury and the wages that the injured person is able to earn thereafter. Unemployment benefits received during the period of temporary partial disability shall be considered wages able to be earned.
B. Disability shall be deemed permanent partial disability if caused by any of the following specified injuries, and compensation of fifty-five percent of the average monthly wage of the injured employee, in addition to the compensation for temporary total disability, shall be paid for the period given in the following schedule:
1. For the loss of a thumb, fifteen months.
2. For the loss of a first finger, commonly called the index finger, nine months.
3. For the loss of a second finger, seven months.
4. For the loss of a third finger, five months.
5. For the loss of the fourth finger, commonly called the little finger, four months.
6. The loss of a distal or second phalange of the thumb or the distal or third phalange of the first, second, third or fourth finger, shall be considered equal to the loss of one-half of the thumb or finger, and compensation shall be one-half of the amount specified for the loss of the entire thumb or finger.
7. The loss of more than one phalange of the thumb or finger shall be considered as the loss of the entire finger or thumb, but in no event shall the amount received for more than one finger exceed the amount provided for the loss of a hand.
8. For the loss of a great toe, seven months.
9. For the loss of a toe other than the great toe, two and one-half months.
10. The loss of the first phalange of any toe shall be considered equal to the loss of one-half of the toe and compensation shall be one-half of the amount for one toe.
11. The loss of more than one phalange shall be considered as the loss of the entire toe.
12. For the loss of a major hand, fifty months, or of a minor hand, forty months.
13. For the loss of a major arm, sixty months, or of a minor arm, fifty months.
14. For the loss of a foot, forty months.
15. For the loss of a leg, fifty months.
16. For the loss of an eye by enucleation, thirty months.
17. For the permanent and complete loss of sight in one eye without enucleation, twenty-five months.
18. For permanent and complete loss of hearing in one ear, twenty months.
19. For permanent and complete loss of hearing in both ears, sixty months.
20. The permanent and complete loss of the use of a finger, toe, arm, hand, foot or leg may be deemed the same as the loss of any such member by separation.
21. For the partial loss of use of a finger, toe, arm, hand, foot or leg, or partial loss of sight or hearing, fifty percent of the average monthly wage during that proportion of the number of months in the foregoing schedule provided for the complete loss of use of such member, or complete loss of sight or hearing, which the partial loss of use thereof bears to the total loss of use of such member or total loss of sight or hearing. For the purposes of this paragraph, "loss of use" means a loss of physical function of the affected member, sight or hearing. The effect on an employee's ability to return to the employee's occupation at the time of the injury shall not be considered in establishing the percentage of loss under this section, except that if the employee is unable to return to the work the employee was performing at the time the employee was injured due to the total or partial loss of use, compensation pursuant to this section shall be calculated based on seventy-five percent of the average monthly wage.
22. For permanent disfigurement about the head or face, including injury to or loss of teeth, the commission, pursuant to section 23-1047, may allow such sum for compensation thereof as it deems just, in accordance with the proof submitted, for a period of not more than eighteen months.
C. In cases not enumerated in subsection B of this section, if the injury causes permanent partial disability for work, the employee shall receive during such disability compensation equal to fifty-five percent of the difference between the employee's average monthly wages before the accident and the amount that represents the employee's reduced monthly earning capacity resulting from the disability, but the payment shall not continue after the disability ends, or the death of the injured employee, and in case the partial disability begins after a period of total disability, the period of total disability shall be deducted from the total period of compensation.
D. In determining the amount that represents the reduced monthly earning capacity for the purposes of subsections A and C of this section, consideration shall be given, among other things, to any previous disability, the occupational history of the injured employee, the nature and extent of the physical disability, the type of work the injured employee is able to perform after the injury, any wages received for work performed after the injury and the age of the employee at the time of injury. If the employee is unable to return to work or continue working in any employment after the injury due to the employee's termination from employment for reasons that are unrelated to the industrial injury, the commission may consider the wages that the employee could have earned from that employment as representative of the employee's earning capacity. A determination of earning capacity that is based on wages that could have been earned from previously terminated employment is subject to change under subsection F of this section and an employee retains the right to later establish that the employee's reduced earning capacity is related in whole or in part to the industrial injury.
E. In case there is a previous disability, as the loss of one eye, one hand, one foot or otherwise, the percentage of disability for a subsequent injury shall be determined by computing the percentage of the entire disability and deducting therefrom the percentage of the previous disability as it existed at the time of the subsequent injury.
F. For the purposes of subsection C of this section, the commission, in accordance with the provisions of section 23-1047 when the physical condition of the injured employee becomes stationary, shall determine the amount that represents the reduced monthly earning capacity and on such determination make an award of compensation that is subject to change in any of the following events:
1. On a showing of a change in the physical condition of the employee after such findings and award arising out of the injury resulting in the reduction or increase of the employee's earning capacity.
2. On a showing of a reduction in the earning capacity of the employee arising out of such injury where there is no change in the employee's physical condition, after the findings and award.
3. On a showing that the employee's earning capacity has increased after such findings and award.
G. The commission may adopt a schedule for rating loss of earning capacity and reasonable and proper rules to carry out this section. In all cases involving this section, except for cases under subsection B of this section, or in cases involving a request pursuant to section 23-1061, subsection J for disability compensation, if any issue is raised regarding whether the injured employee has suffered a loss of earning capacity because of an inability to obtain or retain suitable work, the following apply:
1. The employer or carrier may present evidence showing that the inability to obtain suitable work is due, in whole or in part, to economic or business conditions, or other factors unrelated to the industrial injury. The injured employee may present evidence showing that the inability to obtain suitable work is due, in whole or in part, to the industrial injury or limitations resulting from the injury. The administrative law judge shall consider all such evidence in determining whether and to what extent the injured employee has sustained any loss of earning capacity.
2. In cases involving loss of employment, the employer or carrier may present evidence showing that the injured employee was terminated from employment or has not obtained suitable work, or both, due, in whole or in part, to economic or business conditions, or other factors unrelated to the injury. The injured employee may present evidence showing that such termination or inability to obtain suitable work is due, in whole or in part, to the industrial injury or limitations resulting from the injury. The administrative law judge shall consider all such evidence in determining whether and to what extent the injured employee has sustained any loss or additional loss of earning capacity.
H. Any single injury or disability that is listed in subsection B of this section and that is not converted into an injury or disability compensated under subsection C of this section by operation of this section shall be treated as scheduled under subsection B of this section regardless of its actual effect on the injured employee's earning capacity.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
403
cases (
7 in the last 5 years), 1956–2026 · leading case:
Landon v. Indus. Comm'n, 375 P.3d 86 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
Landon v. Indus. Comm'n, 375 P.3d 86 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 33× “The unusual circumstances presented here fall roughly within the second phase described above, given that Landon was unable to work for several months following his surgeries, and then he was released to return to work but his condition had not been declared medically stationary.”
Alsbrooks v. Indus. Comm'n, 578 P.2d 159 (Ariz. 1978).
· cites it 44× “" And A.R.S. § 23-1044 provides the method of determining the amount of compensation for partial disability.”
Dutra v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 659 P.2d 18 (Ariz. 1983).
· cites it 44× “The Oregon court stated that there was no absolute correlation between physical impairment and loss of use on which compensation is based, and sustained the referee's conclusion that a greater percentage of loss of use was justified where the physical injury inhibits the…”
Linda Bell v. Ica/ Maricopa Cty/ Pinnacle Risk, 341 P.3d 1149 (Ariz. 2015).
· cites it 22× ““[W]hen [A.R.S. § 23-1044] says ‘disability,’ it means earning capacity disability even though the effect upon the work[er]’s earning capacity may be minimal,” Alsbrooks, 118 Ariz.”
Cnty. of Maricopa v. Indus. Comm'n of Arizona, 699 P.2d 389 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 44× “The facts sub judice are that claimant earned his accrued sick leave entitlement as a part of his regular employment; that he had to actually use his sick leave compensation in order to gain any benefit from it, and that he received sick leave compensation in the full amount of…”
Young v. Indus. Comm'n, 63 P.3d 298 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 8× “Permanent disability to an arm is listed among those injuries for which permanent disability benefits are specifically provided.”
Hoppin v. Indus. Com'n of Ariz., 692 P.2d 297 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 38× “Sections 23-1044D and E?” We first consider claimant’s contentions concerning subsections (D) and (E) of A.R.S. § 23-1044. These subsections read as follows: “(D) In determining the amount which represents the reduced monthly earning capacity for the purposes of subsection C of…”
Wollum v. Indus. Comm'n, 414 P.2d 137 (Ariz. 1966).
· cites it 35× “The issue presented upon this appeal is whether the "previous loss of the distal phalanx of the left index finger, coupled with a fifteen per cent loss of function *320 of the right leg, constitutes an `unscheduled' disability under A.R.S. § 23-1044, subsecs. C, D. & E." "§…”
All Star Coach, Inc. v. Indus. Comm'n, 565 P.2d 515 (Ariz. 1977).
· cites it 28× “The Legislature has provided, in A.R.S. § 23-1044(B), for compensation when certain “scheduled” injuries are suffered.”
Allen v. Indus. Comm'n, 347 P.2d 710 (Ariz. 1959).
· cites it 20× “The Commission found that petitioner’s injuries resulted from an accident occurring on June 1, 1956, which arose out of and in the course of his employment, that his physical condition became stationary on February 12, 1958, and that because petitioner sustained multiple…”
Gamez v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 141 P.3d 794 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 16× “" A.R.S. § 23-1044(A) (Supp.2005). However, regardless of the injury sustained, as a matter of law, illegal aliens are not "able to earn thereafter" because they cannot legally be employed.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1044(0) — 5 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1044(13) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1044(22) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1044(A) — 22 cases
Linda Bell v. Ica/ Maricopa Cty/ Pinnacle Risk, 341 P.3d 1149 (Ariz. 2015).
““[W]hen [A.R.S. § 23-1044] says ‘disability,’ it means earning capacity disability even though the effect upon the work[er]’s earning capacity may be minimal,” Alsbrooks, 118 Ariz.”
Cnty. of Maricopa v. Indus. Comm'n of Arizona, 699 P.2d 389 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
“The facts sub judice are that claimant earned his accrued sick leave entitlement as a part of his regular employment; that he had to actually use his sick leave compensation in order to gain any benefit from it, and that he received sick leave compensation in the full amount of…”
Landon v. Indus. Comm'n, 375 P.3d 86 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“The unusual circumstances presented here fall roughly within the second phase described above, given that Landon was unable to work for several months following his surgeries, and then he was released to return to work but his condition had not been declared medically stationary.”
Gamez v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 141 P.3d 794 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
“" A.R.S. § 23-1044(A) (Supp.2005). However, regardless of the injury sustained, as a matter of law, illegal aliens are not "able to earn thereafter" because they cannot legally be employed.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1044(B) — 53 cases
Young v. Indus. Comm'n, 63 P.3d 298 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
“Permanent disability to an arm is listed among those injuries for which permanent disability benefits are specifically provided.”
Dutra v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 659 P.2d 18 (Ariz. 1983).
“The Oregon court stated that there was no absolute correlation between physical impairment and loss of use on which compensation is based, and sustained the referee's conclusion that a greater percentage of loss of use was justified where the physical injury inhibits the…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1044(B)(1) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1044(B)(12) — 3 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1044(B)(13) — 7 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1044(B)(14) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1044(B)(15) — 10 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1044(B)(16) — 1 case
Alsbrooks v. Indus. Comm'n, 578 P.2d 159 (Ariz. 1978).
“" And A.R.S. § 23-1044 provides the method of determining the amount of compensation for partial disability.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1044(B)(1995) — 2 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1044(B)(20) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1044(B)(21) — 21 cases
Dutra v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 659 P.2d 18 (Ariz. 1983).
“The Oregon court stated that there was no absolute correlation between physical impairment and loss of use on which compensation is based, and sustained the referee's conclusion that a greater percentage of loss of use was justified where the physical injury inhibits the…”
Young v. Indus. Comm'n, 63 P.3d 298 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
“Permanent disability to an arm is listed among those injuries for which permanent disability benefits are specifically provided.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1044(B)(22) — 7 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1044(B)(5) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1044(B)(C)(D)(E) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1044(C) — 56 cases
Dutra v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 659 P.2d 18 (Ariz. 1983).
“The Oregon court stated that there was no absolute correlation between physical impairment and loss of use on which compensation is based, and sustained the referee's conclusion that a greater percentage of loss of use was justified where the physical injury inhibits the…”
Alsbrooks v. Indus. Comm'n, 578 P.2d 159 (Ariz. 1978).
“" And A.R.S. § 23-1044 provides the method of determining the amount of compensation for partial disability.”
Cnty. of Maricopa v. Indus. Comm'n of Arizona, 699 P.2d 389 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
“The facts sub judice are that claimant earned his accrued sick leave entitlement as a part of his regular employment; that he had to actually use his sick leave compensation in order to gain any benefit from it, and that he received sick leave compensation in the full amount of…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1044(D) — 35 cases
Landon v. Indus. Comm'n, 375 P.3d 86 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“The unusual circumstances presented here fall roughly within the second phase described above, given that Landon was unable to work for several months following his surgeries, and then he was released to return to work but his condition had not been declared medically stationary.”
Hoppin v. Indus. Com'n of Ariz., 692 P.2d 297 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
“Sections 23-1044D and E?” We first consider claimant’s contentions concerning subsections (D) and (E) of A.R.S. § 23-1044. These subsections read as follows: “(D) In determining the amount which represents the reduced monthly earning capacity for the purposes of subsection C of…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1044(E) — 44 cases
All Star Coach, Inc. v. Indus. Comm'n, 565 P.2d 515 (Ariz. 1977).
“The Legislature has provided, in A.R.S. § 23-1044(B), for compensation when certain “scheduled” injuries are suffered.”
Hoppin v. Indus. Com'n of Ariz., 692 P.2d 297 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
“Sections 23-1044D and E?” We first consider claimant’s contentions concerning subsections (D) and (E) of A.R.S. § 23-1044. These subsections read as follows: “(D) In determining the amount which represents the reduced monthly earning capacity for the purposes of subsection C of…”
Cnty. of Maricopa v. Indus. Comm'n of Arizona, 699 P.2d 389 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
“The facts sub judice are that claimant earned his accrued sick leave entitlement as a part of his regular employment; that he had to actually use his sick leave compensation in order to gain any benefit from it, and that he received sick leave compensation in the full amount of…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1044(F) — 42 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1044(F)(1) — 5 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1044(F)(2) — 12 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1044(F)(3) — 8 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1044(F)(l) — 4 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1044(G) — 9 cases
Gamez v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 141 P.3d 794 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
“" A.R.S. § 23-1044(A) (Supp.2005). However, regardless of the injury sustained, as a matter of law, illegal aliens are not "able to earn thereafter" because they cannot legally be employed.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1044(G)(2) — 2 cases
Landon v. Indus. Comm'n, 375 P.3d 86 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“The unusual circumstances presented here fall roughly within the second phase described above, given that Landon was unable to work for several months following his surgeries, and then he was released to return to work but his condition had not been declared medically stationary.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1044(G)(l) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1044(H) — 9 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1044(c) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1044(d) — 1 case
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.