Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 39. LABOR · CHAPTER 71. WORKERS' COMPENSATION · Part 1. General Provisions
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-123 (2026)

Wages Defined

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. MCA Contents
  2. TITLE 39
  3. CHAPTER 71
  4. Part 1
  5. 39-71-123 Wages defined

TITLE 39. LABOR

CHAPTER 71. WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Part 1. General Provisions

Wages Defined

39-71-123. Wages defined. (1) "Wages" means all remuneration paid for services performed by an employee for an employer, or income provided for in subsection (1)(d). Wages include the cash value of all remuneration paid in any medium other than cash. The term includes but is not limited to:

(a) monetary commissions, bonuses, and remuneration at the regular hourly rate for overtime work, holidays, vacations, and periods of sickness;

(b) backpay or any similar pay made for or in regard to previous service by the employee for the employer, other than retirement or pension benefits from a qualified plan;

(c) tips or other gratuities received by the employee to the extent that tips or gratuities are documented by the employee to the employer for tax purposes;

(d) income or payment in the form of a draw, wage, net profit, or money received or taken by a sole proprietor or partner, regardless of whether the sole proprietor or partner has performed work or provided services for that remuneration;

(e) payments made to an employee on any basis other than time worked, including but not limited to piecework, an incentive plan, or profit-sharing arrangement;

(f) board if it constitutes a part of the employee's remuneration and is based on its actual value; and

(g) lodging, rent, or housing if it constitutes part of the employee's remuneration and is based on a value as set by administrative rule. The values set by administrative rule must address the general geographic proximity to available housing and may consider other reasonable factors that affect value.

(2) The term "wages" does not include any of the following:

(a) employee expense reimbursements or allowances for meals, lodging, travel, subsistence, and other expenses, as set forth in department rules;

(b) the amount of the payment made by the employer for employees, if the payment was made for:

(i) retirement or pension pursuant to a qualified plan as defined under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code;

(ii) sickness or accident disability under a workers' compensation policy;

(iii) medical or hospitalization expenses in connection with sickness or accident disability, including health insurance for the employee or the employee's immediate family;

(iv) death, including life insurance for the employee or the employee's immediate family;

(c) vacation or sick leave benefits accrued but not paid;

(d) special monetary rewards for individual invention or discovery; or

(e) monetary and other benefits paid to a person as part of public assistance, as defined in 53-4-201.

(3) (a) Except as provided in subsection (3)(b), for compensation benefit purposes, the average actual earnings for the four pay periods immediately preceding the injury are the employee's wages, except that if the term of employment for the same employer is less than four pay periods, the employee's wages are the hourly rate times the number of hours in a week for which the employee was hired to work.

(b) For good cause shown, if the use of the last four pay periods does not accurately reflect the claimant's employment history with the employer, the wage may be calculated by dividing the total earnings for an additional period of time, not to exceed 1 year prior to the date of injury, by the number of weeks in that period, including periods of idleness or seasonal fluctuations.

(4) (a) For the purpose of calculating compensation benefits for an employee working concurrent employments, the average actual wages must be calculated as provided in subsection (3). As used in this subsection, "concurrent employment" means employment in which the employee was actually employed at the time of the injury and would have continued to be employed without a break in the term of employment if not for the injury.

(b) Except as provided in 39-71-118(10)(c), the compensation benefits for a covered volunteer must be based on the average actual monetary wages in the volunteer's regular employment, except self-employment as a sole proprietor or partner who elected not to be covered, from which the volunteer is disabled by the injury incurred.

(c) The compensation benefits for an employee working at two or more concurrent remunerated employments must be based on the aggregate of average actual monetary wages of all employments, except for the wages earned by individuals while engaged in the employments outlined in 39-71-401(3)(a) who elected not to be covered, from which the employee is disabled by the injury incurred.

(5) For the purposes of calculating compensation benefits for an employee working for an employer, as provided in 39-71-117(1)(d), and for calculating premiums to be paid by that employer, the wages must be based upon all hours worked multiplied by the mean hourly wage by area, as published by the department in the edition of Montana Informational Wage Rates by Occupation, adopted annually by the department, that is in effect as of the date of injury or for the period in which the premium is due.

History: En. Sec. 4, Ch. 464, L. 1987; amd. Sec. 12, Ch. 333, L. 1989; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 129, L. 1991; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 261, L. 1991; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 154, L. 1993; amd. Sec. 23, Ch. 619, L. 1993; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 131, L. 1995; amd. Sec. 7, Ch. 243, L. 1995; amd. Sec. 29, Ch. 491, L. 1997; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 124, L. 1999; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 377, L. 1999; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 238, L. 2001; amd. Sec. 4, Ch. 465, L. 2001; amd. Sec. 8, Ch. 112, L. 2009; amd. Sec. 9, Ch. 255, L. 2011; amd. Sec. 4, Ch. 412, L. 2013; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 329, L. 2017.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1989–2025 · leading case: Lovell v. State Comp. Mut. Ins. Fund, 860 P.2d 95 (Mont. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lovell v. State Comp. Mut. Ins. Fund, 860 P.2d 95 (Mont. 1993). · cites it 50× “Although Lovell argued that he should be allowed to aggregate his wages from other employments, the court concluded that because § 39-71-123(3)(a), MCA (1987), specifically referred to the claimant's employment with the "same employer," the statute precluded consideration of…”
Sturchio v. Wausau Underwriters Ins., 2007 MT 311 (Mont. 2007). · cites it 58× “¶2 We restate the issue as follows: ¶3 Did the WCC err when it interpreted § 39-71-123, MCA (2003), to allow the use of multiple methods to calculate Sturchio’s average actual wage from concurrent employments? BACKGROUND ¶4 On June 11, 2005, Augustina Sturchio (Sturchio)…”
Dunnington v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 2000 MT 349 (Mont. 2000). · cites it 31× “¶12 While the cases on which Dunnington relies are factually distinguishable from the present case, the most important distinguishing factor is that each of these cases was decided under versions of § 39-71-123, MCA, in effect prior to the 1995 amendment adding the definition of…”
King v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 938 P.2d 607 (Mont. 1997). · cites it 32× “In essence, she requests a judicial amendment to § 39-71-123, MCA (1991), to add a third exception to the “four pay period” rule.”
David v. State Comp. Mut. Ins. Fund, 884 P.2d 778 (Mont. 1994). · cites it 25× “State Fund calculated David’s compensation by interpreting § 39-71-123, MCA (1991), to mean that a person who is hired to work only one day has an average weekly wage equalling that one day’s wages.”
Robertson v. Aero Power-Vac, Inc., 899 P.2d 1078 (Mont. 1995). · cites it 16× “It is undisputed that subsection (3)(a) of § 39-71-123, MCA (1991), applies here, since Robertson’s term of employment with Aero was less than four pay periods.”
T. Barnhart v. State Fund, 2022 MT 250 (Mont. 2022). · cites it 17× “The WCC explained that the determination of an injured worker’s PPD benefit rate uses a two-step process: first, the worker’s time-of-injury wages are determined pursuant to § 39-71-123, MCA; next, that determination is used to calculate the worker’s PPD benefit rate pursuant to…”
Flink v. Am. Alt. Ins., 2000 MT 224 (Mont. 2000). · cites it 9× “An injured employee’s wages for purposes of calculating workers’ compensation benefits are determined pursuant to § 39-71-123, MCA. See Robertson, 272 Mont.”
Big Sky Colony, Inc. v. Montana Dep't of Labor & Indus., 2012 MT 320 (Mont. 2012). · cites it 4× “HB 119 created the new financial category of “remuneration,” § 39-71-117(1)(d), MCA, and in other provisions drafted in tandem, revised § 39-71-123(5), MCA, to incorporate a method for calculating remuneration so that the Act would apply to the Hutterites, who receive no wages.”
Gregory v. Michael Bailey & Sons Logging, 841 P.2d 525 (Mont. 1992). · cites it 7× “The court determined that Gregory’s average weekly wage for purposes of *192 § 39-71-123, MCA (1989), was $312.00 per week, with a resulting temporary total disability rate of $208.”
Anderson v. Hammer, 826 P.2d 931 (Mont. 1992). · cites it 4× “The Court notes that in 1987 the legislature enacted § 39-71-123, MCA, providing that "[w]ages include but are not limited to .”
Stuber v. Moodie Implement, 769 P.2d 1205 (Mont. 1989). · cites it 2× “New § 39-71-123(3), MCA, provides that an employee’s wages shall be averaged over the four pay periods preceding the injury unless the claimant, and only the claimant, can show that the use of the four pay periods does not accurately reflect his employment history.”
Show all 20 citing cases →
Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-123(1): 2 cases
Lovell v. State Comp. Mut. Ins. Fund, 860 P.2d 95 (Mont. 1993). “Although Lovell argued that he should be allowed to aggregate his wages from other employments, the court concluded that because § 39-71-123(3)(a), MCA (1987), specifically referred to the claimant's employment with the "same employer," the statute precluded consideration of…”
Sturchio v. Wausau Underwriters Ins., 2007 MT 311 (Mont. 2007). “¶2 We restate the issue as follows: ¶3 Did the WCC err when it interpreted § 39-71-123, MCA (2003), to allow the use of multiple methods to calculate Sturchio’s average actual wage from concurrent employments? BACKGROUND ¶4 On June 11, 2005, Augustina Sturchio (Sturchio)…”
Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-123(1)(a): 1 case
Perea v. Amtrust Ins., 2025 MT 130 (Mont. 2025).
Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-123(1)(d): 1 case
Montana Mun. Ins. Auth. v. Roche, 2009 MT 205 (Mont. 2009).
Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-123(3): 10 cases
Lovell v. State Comp. Mut. Ins. Fund, 860 P.2d 95 (Mont. 1993). “Although Lovell argued that he should be allowed to aggregate his wages from other employments, the court concluded that because § 39-71-123(3)(a), MCA (1987), specifically referred to the claimant's employment with the "same employer," the statute precluded consideration of…”
King v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 938 P.2d 607 (Mont. 1997). “In essence, she requests a judicial amendment to § 39-71-123, MCA (1991), to add a third exception to the “four pay period” rule.”
Sturchio v. Wausau Underwriters Ins., 2007 MT 311 (Mont. 2007). “¶2 We restate the issue as follows: ¶3 Did the WCC err when it interpreted § 39-71-123, MCA (2003), to allow the use of multiple methods to calculate Sturchio’s average actual wage from concurrent employments? BACKGROUND ¶4 On June 11, 2005, Augustina Sturchio (Sturchio)…”
Robertson v. Aero Power-Vac, Inc., 899 P.2d 1078 (Mont. 1995). “It is undisputed that subsection (3)(a) of § 39-71-123, MCA (1991), applies here, since Robertson’s term of employment with Aero was less than four pay periods.”
David v. State Comp. Mut. Ins. Fund, 884 P.2d 778 (Mont. 1994). “State Fund calculated David’s compensation by interpreting § 39-71-123, MCA (1991), to mean that a person who is hired to work only one day has an average weekly wage equalling that one day’s wages.”
Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-123(3)(a): 8 cases
Lovell v. State Comp. Mut. Ins. Fund, 860 P.2d 95 (Mont. 1993). “Although Lovell argued that he should be allowed to aggregate his wages from other employments, the court concluded that because § 39-71-123(3)(a), MCA (1987), specifically referred to the claimant's employment with the "same employer," the statute precluded consideration of…”
Dunnington v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 2000 MT 349 (Mont. 2000). “¶12 While the cases on which Dunnington relies are factually distinguishable from the present case, the most important distinguishing factor is that each of these cases was decided under versions of § 39-71-123, MCA, in effect prior to the 1995 amendment adding the definition of…”
King v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 938 P.2d 607 (Mont. 1997). “In essence, she requests a judicial amendment to § 39-71-123, MCA (1991), to add a third exception to the “four pay period” rule.”
David v. State Comp. Mut. Ins. Fund, 884 P.2d 778 (Mont. 1994). “State Fund calculated David’s compensation by interpreting § 39-71-123, MCA (1991), to mean that a person who is hired to work only one day has an average weekly wage equalling that one day’s wages.”
Robertson v. Aero Power-Vac, Inc., 899 P.2d 1078 (Mont. 1995). “It is undisputed that subsection (3)(a) of § 39-71-123, MCA (1991), applies here, since Robertson’s term of employment with Aero was less than four pay periods.”
Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-123(3)(b): 5 cases
King v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 938 P.2d 607 (Mont. 1997). “In essence, she requests a judicial amendment to § 39-71-123, MCA (1991), to add a third exception to the “four pay period” rule.”
Dunnington v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 2000 MT 349 (Mont. 2000). “¶12 While the cases on which Dunnington relies are factually distinguishable from the present case, the most important distinguishing factor is that each of these cases was decided under versions of § 39-71-123, MCA, in effect prior to the 1995 amendment adding the definition of…”
Gregory v. Michael Bailey & Sons Logging, 841 P.2d 525 (Mont. 1992). “The court determined that Gregory’s average weekly wage for purposes of *192 § 39-71-123, MCA (1989), was $312.00 per week, with a resulting temporary total disability rate of $208.”
Deshner v. Town & Country Foods, Inc., 880 P.2d 1300 (Mont. 1994).
Perryman v. State Comp. Mut. Ins. Fund/Blue Range Mining Co., 887 P.2d 254 (Mont. 1994).
Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-123(4): 2 cases
Dunnington v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 2000 MT 349 (Mont. 2000). “¶12 While the cases on which Dunnington relies are factually distinguishable from the present case, the most important distinguishing factor is that each of these cases was decided under versions of § 39-71-123, MCA, in effect prior to the 1995 amendment adding the definition of…”
Quigg v. Montana State Fund, 2005 MT 267N (Mont. 2005).
Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-123(4)(a): 4 cases
Dunnington v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 2000 MT 349 (Mont. 2000). “¶12 While the cases on which Dunnington relies are factually distinguishable from the present case, the most important distinguishing factor is that each of these cases was decided under versions of § 39-71-123, MCA, in effect prior to the 1995 amendment adding the definition of…”
Sturchio v. Wausau Underwriters Ins., 2007 MT 311 (Mont. 2007). “¶2 We restate the issue as follows: ¶3 Did the WCC err when it interpreted § 39-71-123, MCA (2003), to allow the use of multiple methods to calculate Sturchio’s average actual wage from concurrent employments? BACKGROUND ¶4 On June 11, 2005, Augustina Sturchio (Sturchio)…”
T. Barnhart v. State Fund, 2022 MT 250 (Mont. 2022). “The WCC explained that the determination of an injured worker’s PPD benefit rate uses a two-step process: first, the worker’s time-of-injury wages are determined pursuant to § 39-71-123, MCA; next, that determination is used to calculate the worker’s PPD benefit rate pursuant to…”
Perea v. Amtrust Ins., 2025 MT 130 (Mont. 2025).
Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-123(4)(c): 3 cases
Sturchio v. Wausau Underwriters Ins., 2007 MT 311 (Mont. 2007). “¶2 We restate the issue as follows: ¶3 Did the WCC err when it interpreted § 39-71-123, MCA (2003), to allow the use of multiple methods to calculate Sturchio’s average actual wage from concurrent employments? BACKGROUND ¶4 On June 11, 2005, Augustina Sturchio (Sturchio)…”
T. Barnhart v. State Fund, 2022 MT 250 (Mont. 2022). “The WCC explained that the determination of an injured worker’s PPD benefit rate uses a two-step process: first, the worker’s time-of-injury wages are determined pursuant to § 39-71-123, MCA; next, that determination is used to calculate the worker’s PPD benefit rate pursuant to…”
David v. State Comp. Mut. Ins. Fund, 884 P.2d 778 (Mont. 1994). “State Fund calculated David’s compensation by interpreting § 39-71-123, MCA (1991), to mean that a person who is hired to work only one day has an average weekly wage equalling that one day’s wages.”
Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-123(5): 1 case
Big Sky Colony, Inc. v. Montana Dep't of Labor & Indus., 2012 MT 320 (Mont. 2012). “HB 119 created the new financial category of “remuneration,” § 39-71-117(1)(d), MCA, and in other provisions drafted in tandem, revised § 39-71-123(5), MCA, to incorporate a method for calculating remuneration so that the Act would apply to the Hutterites, who receive no wages.”
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.