What’s the State of the Law on AMW in Arizona?

30 Sep, 2025 Frank Ferreri

                               
Compliance Corner

When it comes to average monthly wages in Arizona, what does legislative- and judge-made law say about how to figure amounts and whether an expanded base should be used?

We take a look at the relevant statutes and a few cases, thanks to Cantrell v. Indus. Comm'n, No. 1 CA-IC-24-0060 (Ariz. Ct. App. 09/25/25), a case that Simply Research subscribers can access.

Statutes

A.R.S. § 23-1041(A). The commission determines a worker's disability benefits by using the worker's AMW "at the time of injury."

A.R.S. § 23-1041(G). The AMW is the average wage paid during and over the month in which the employee was injured.

Cases

Elco Veterinary Supply v. Indus. Comm'n, 668 P.2d 889 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). The AMW statute creates a presumptive 30-day wage period for determining AMW.

Morse v. Indus. Comm'n, 146 P.3d 76 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). When the evidence shows that the presumptive wage base does not realistically reflect the injured worker's earning capacity, the ALJ has broad discretion to use a wage base greater than one month, an expanded wage base. Seasonal employment, intermittent employment "or unrepresentative wages during the month before the injury" may justify an expanded wage base. 

Pettis v. Indus. Comm'n., 372 P.2d 72 (Ariz. 1962). An expanded wage base should not include periods when a worker is unable to work due to factors outside the worker's control. Therefore, time off due to layoffs, voluntary removal from the labor market or time taken off by personal choice are not subtracted. 

Davis v. Indus. Comm'n, 655 P.2d 1345 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). Use of an expanded base must be based on evidence that shows the earnings during the 30 days preceding injury do not truly reflect the AMW

Lowry v. Indus. Comm'n, 989 P.2d 152 (Ariz. 1999). An ALJ has discretion to choose the appropriate formula for calculating the average monthly wage from numbers easily obtained, without extrapolating or speculating about unearned wages.

Miller v. Indus. Comm'n, 546 P.2d 19 (Ariz. 1976). The test for determining whether an expanded base is called for is whether the employment, not the worker, is intermittent or erratic.


  • AI california case file caselaw case management case management focus claims compensability compliance compliance corner courts covid do you know the rule exclusive remedy florida FMLA glossary check Healthcare hr homeroom insurance insurers iowa leadership medical NCCI new jersey new york ohio pennsylvania roadmap Safety safety at work state info tech technology violence WDYT west virginia what do you think women's history women's history month workers' comp 101 workers' recovery Workplace Safety Workplace Violence


  • Read Also

    About The Author

    • Frank Ferreri

      Frank Ferreri, M.A., J.D. covers workers' compensation legal issues. He has published books, articles, and other material on multiple areas of employment, insurance, and disability law. Frank received his master's degree from the University of South Florida and juris doctor from the University of Florida Levin College of Law. Frank encourages everyone to consider helping out the Kind Souls Foundation and Kids' Chance of America.

    Read More