Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1064 (2026)

Presumptions of dependency; determination

✓ current as of May 2026

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

A. The following persons are conclusively presumed to be totally dependent for support upon a deceased employee:

1. A wife upon a husband whom she has not voluntarily abandoned at the time of the injury.

2. A husband upon a wife whom he has not voluntarily abandoned at the time of the injury.

3. A natural, posthumous or adopted child under the age of eighteen years or under the age of twenty-two years if enrolled as a full-time student in any accredited educational institution, or over that age if physically or mentally incapacitated from wage earning, upon the injured parent. Stepparents may be regarded as parents, if dependent, and a stepchild as a natural child if dependent.

B. Questions of dependency and the extent thereof shall be determined as of the date of the injury to the employee and the dependent's right to any death benefit shall become fixed as of such time irrespective of any subsequent change in conditions, and the death benefits shall be directly recoverable by and payable to the dependent entitled thereto.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 29 cases, 1960–2014 · leading case: Dunn v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 866 P.2d 858 (Ariz. 1994).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Dunn v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 866 P.2d 858 (Ariz. 1994). · cites it 34× “§ 23-1046 and AR.S. § 23-1064 is determined at the time of death and not at the time of trauma, we answer both questions in the affirmative.”

El Dorado Ins. Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 545 P.2d 465 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 12× “A connected question deals with the constitutionality of the conclusive presumption of dependency found in A.R.S. § 23-1064. Norman and Theresa Tanner were engaged in their occupation of truck driving when they were involved in a one vehicle accident near Hydro, Oklahoma on May…”

Putvain v. Indus. Com'n of Ariz., 680 P.2d 1199 (Ariz. 1984). · cites it 16× “Putvain’s petition for review of a decision of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, affirming the denial of her request for widow’s benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, A.R.S. § 23-1064. Putvain v. Industrial Commission, 140 Ariz.”

Diesel Drivers v. Indus. Comm'n, 593 P.2d 934 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 15× “The carrier and employer have timely requested review by this Court, urging that the conclusive presumption of total dependency provided by A.R.S. § 23-1064 A(3) is not applicable to unadopted stepchildren, and that the hearing officer’s award of death benefits to the…”

Thomas v. Indus. Comm'n of Arizona, 350 P.2d 392 (Ariz. 1960). · cites it 14× “Therefore, although petitioner may come within the language of § 23-1046, it still is incumbent upon him, in order to establish his right to death benefits, to prove that either by virtue of the statutory conclusive presumption in § 23-1064, or on the facts existing at the…”

Padilla v. Indus. Comm'n, 546 P.2d 1135 (Ariz. 1976). · cites it 3× “” A.R.S. § 23-1064(A). Petitioner, while recognizing that § 23-1064(A) specifically refers to dependents of deceased employees, bases her appeal upon the premise that the same conclusive presumption should likewise apply to dependents of injured employees.”

Holder v. Indus. Comm'n of Arizona, 609 P.2d 1066 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 17× “*368 On the other hand, the respondents argue that A.R.S. § 23-1064 must be read in conjunction with all the adoption statutes and specifically A.”

Nelson v. Indus. Comm'n, 585 P.2d 887 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 4× “2d 801 (1974), and reasoning by analogy to A.R.S. § 23-1064(B), which fixes dependency as the “date of the injury”, determined petitioner’s claim must be governed by the law applicable at the time of the deceased’s last injurious exposure to asbestos.”

Clark v. Indus. Comm'n, 460 P.2d 22 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1969). · cites it 10× “A.R.S. § 23-1064 provides in part: “A. The following persons are conclusively presumed to be totally dependent for support upon a deceased employee: “1.”

Bonnin v. Indus. Comm'n, 432 P.2d 283 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1967). · cites it 5× ““§ 23-1064. Presumptions of dependency; determination “A.”

Putvain v. Indus. Comm'n, 680 P.2d 1214 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 20× “The sole issue in this review of an award of the Industrial Commission is whether a *154 widow who was originally abandoned by her husband may be considered to have abandoned her husband within the meaning of A.R.S. § 23-1064 at the time of his death in an industrial setting.”

Charles W. Stenz v. City of Tucson & Pinnacle Risk Mgmt. Servs., 336 P.3d 737 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “§ 23-1021, the claimant is a dependent entitled to death benefits, A.R.S. § 23-1064, and, in some instances, the degree of the claimant’s dependency, § 23-1046(A)(5).”

Show all 29 citing cases →

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1064(A) — 6 cases

Padilla v. Indus. Comm'n, 546 P.2d 1135 (Ariz. 1976). “” A.R.S. § 23-1064(A). Petitioner, while recognizing that § 23-1064(A) specifically refers to dependents of deceased employees, bases her appeal upon the premise that the same conclusive presumption should likewise apply to dependents of injured employees.”

Dunn v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 866 P.2d 858 (Ariz. 1994). “§ 23-1046 and AR.S. § 23-1064 is determined at the time of death and not at the time of trauma, we answer both questions in the affirmative.”

Holder v. Indus. Comm'n of Arizona, 609 P.2d 1066 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980). “*368 On the other hand, the respondents argue that A.R.S. § 23-1064 must be read in conjunction with all the adoption statutes and specifically A.”

Ezell v. Indus. Comm'n, 533 P.2d 1185 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975).

Federico v. Indus. Comm'n, 923 P.2d 848 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1064(A)(1) — 3 cases

Putvain v. Indus. Com'n of Ariz., 680 P.2d 1199 (Ariz. 1984). “Putvain’s petition for review of a decision of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, affirming the denial of her request for widow’s benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, A.R.S. § 23-1064. Putvain v. Industrial Commission, 140 Ariz.”

Putvain v. Indus. Comm'n, 680 P.2d 1214 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). “The sole issue in this review of an award of the Industrial Commission is whether a *154 widow who was originally abandoned by her husband may be considered to have abandoned her husband within the meaning of A.R.S. § 23-1064 at the time of his death in an industrial setting.”

Dunn v. Indus. Comm'n, 831 P.2d 839 (Ariz. 1991).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1064(A)(2) — 1 case

El Dorado Ins. Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 545 P.2d 465 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976). “A connected question deals with the constitutionality of the conclusive presumption of dependency found in A.R.S. § 23-1064. Norman and Theresa Tanner were engaged in their occupation of truck driving when they were involved in a one vehicle accident near Hydro, Oklahoma on May…”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1064(A)(3) — 2 cases

Dunn v. Indus. Comm'n, 831 P.2d 839 (Ariz. 1991).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1064(A)(l) — 4 cases

Est. of Garcia v. Indus. Comm'n, 749 P.2d 948 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1064(B) — 10 cases

Nelson v. Indus. Comm'n, 585 P.2d 887 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978). “2d 801 (1974), and reasoning by analogy to A.R.S. § 23-1064(B), which fixes dependency as the “date of the injury”, determined petitioner’s claim must be governed by the law applicable at the time of the deceased’s last injurious exposure to asbestos.”

Triste v. Indus. Comm'n, 544 P.2d 706 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976).

Federico v. Indus. Comm'n, 923 P.2d 848 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).

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.