Use Back Button to return to Index of Cases
No. 93-500 EARL DESHNER, Claimant and Appellant, v. TOWN AND COUNTRY FOODS, INC., and STATE COMPENSATION MUTUAL INSURANCE FUND, Employer, Defendant and Respondent.
Submitted on Briefs June 30, 1994. Decided August 30, 1994.
Appeal from the Workers' Compensation Court. Honorable Timothy J. Reardon, Judge. See C.J.S. Workmen's Compensation Section 292. Reversed and remanded. For Appellant: Tom L. Lewis, Great Falls. For Respondent: Thomas E. Martello, State Compensation Insurance Fund, Helena. JUSTICE NELSON delivered the Opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Court Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment awarding the claimant Earl Deshner $167.17 per week as his total temporary disability compensation rate, based upon an average weekly wage of $250.63. We reverse. The sole issue on appeal is whether the Workers' Compensation Court correctly calculated Deshner's total temporary disability compensation rate. BACKGROUND Earl Deshner (Deshner) commenced employment with Town and Country Foods as a stocker in September, 1991 on a full-time basis with some weekly overtime hours. His starting salary was $5.00 per hour but in October of 1991, his salary was raised to $6.00 per hour. He received a $250.00 bonus on December 31, 1991 and on March 1, 1992, his salary was again increased, to $7.25 per hour. On March 17, 1992, he "suffered an industrial injury arising out of and in the course of his employment with Town and Country Foods, Inc." Town and Country accepted liability and paid temporary total disability payments of $153.82 per week. Deshner filed a petition for hearing on March 8, 1993, contending that his weekly compensation benefits should be $199.89 per week based upon his actual wage at the time of the injury, which was $7.25 per hour. On September 2, 1993, the Workers' Compensation Court filed its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment, stating that Deshner's total disability compensation rate should be $167.17 per week. The Workers' Compensation Court based its calculations upon the claimant's four pay periods previous to his injury pursuant to Section 39-71-701(3), MCA. Deshner's hourly wage during the four preceding pay periods was $6.00 per hour. From this conclusion of the Workers' Compensation Court, Deshner appeals. STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review for conclusions of law is whether the lower tribunal correctly interpreted the law. Steer Inc. v. Department of Revenue (1990), 474-475, 803 P.2d 601, 603. OPINION In order to determine the proper total temporary disability compensation rate (weekly compensation benefit) for Deshner, we review the applicable statutes. The following excerpts of statutes were in effect at the time of Deshner's injury and control the calculation of wages and weekly compensation benefits:
Deshner argues that the Workers' Compensation Court incorrectly calculated his weekly compensation benefits because it did so on the basis of his previous hourly rate of $6.00 per hour. Deshner contends that at the time of the injury, his salary had been increased to $7.25 per hour, and that is the correct amount to be used to calculate his benefit. He also claims that the Workers' Compensation Court's conclusion conflicts with the plain wording of Section 39-71-701(3), MCA. Finally, he asserts that either subsection (a) or subsection (b) of Section 39-71-123(3), MCA, should be applied, both authorizing a different calculation of the weekly compensation benefit. Town and Country counters that Section 39-71-123(3), MCA, mandates that the four pay periods preceding Deshner's injury should be utilized to calculate his wages; Deshner's hourly rate for those pay periods was $6.00 per hour. Town and Country states that claimant cannot rely on the language of Section 39-71-701(3), MCA, which states that "temporary total disability shall be 66 2/3% of the wages received at the time of injury" because the four preceding pay periods must be used in order to determine "wages." Finally, Town and Country also states that subsections (a) and (b) of Section 39-71-123(3), MCA, are inapplicable here. The difficulty in the present case stems from the fact that the claimant was earning $6.00 per hour for the four pay periods prior to his injury but he was earning $7.25 per hour, a substantially higher wage, at the actual time of the injury. In general, a worker's hourly wage for the four preceding pay periods will be the same as his hourly wage at the time of the injury. Therefore, in most cases, Section 39-71-701, MCA, which establishes weekly compensation benefits based on "wages received at the time of the injury" and 39-71-123, MCA, which establishes weekly compensation benefits based on the worker's salary over the four preceding pay periods, will not conflict. However, in this case, the conflict occurs because there is such a dramatic difference between the two salaries and because Deshner is entitled to be paid benefits which bear a reasonable relationship to his actual wage loss. Section 39-71-701(3), MCA, states that the weekly compensation benefit for an injury which produces a temporary total disability shall be 66 2/3% of the claimant's wages received at the time of the injury. Deshner's hourly wage at the time of the injury was $7.25 per hour, not the $6.00 per hour used by the Workers' Compensation Court. Deshner was earning $6.00 per hour during the four pay periods prior to his injury. However, he received a raise and his salary increased to $7.25 per hour on March 1, 1992. He was hired and maintained as a fulltime employee working 40 hours per week plus sporadic overtime. Using the formula provided under Section 39-71-701, MCA, we calculate the following weekly compensation benefit:
The weekly compensation benefit for Deshner using the hourly wage he was actually earning at the time of injury would be $193.34. However, this compensation rate does not take into account any overtime pay or bonus pay received by Deshner. On remand, the Workers' Compensation Court may also consider whether and, if so, to what extent, overtime pay and bonus pay should be included in determining Deshner's final total temporary disability compensation rate. The determination of $193.34 as the base compensation rate differs from the Workers' Compensation Court's calculation, which used a $6.00 hourly wage and totalled $167.17. The application of Section 39-71-123(3), MCA, used by the Workers' Compensation Court, appears to conflict with Section 39-71-701(3), MCA, in the instant case. Section 39-71-123(3), MCA, states that to determine the claimant's weekly compensation benefit, the average actual earnings for the four pay periods preceding the injury should be utilized. However, Section 39-71-701(3), MCA, states that weekly compensation benefits shall be 66 2/3% of the claimant's wages "received at the time of the injury." Deshner argued, and we agree, that subsection (b) of Section 39-71-123(3), MCA, which provides an exception to Section 39-71-123(3), MCA, is applicable to the instant case, conforms with Section 39-71-701(3), MCA, and authorizes the weekly compensation benefit calculated herein. Subsection (b) provides an exception to the standard use of the four preceding pay periods to determine the weekly compensation rate. The subsection states that if the claimant can show good cause as to why the use of the four pay periods does not accurately reflect the claimant's employment history, then additional pay periods can be used. According to Deshner's employment history with Town and Country, he was earning $7.25 per hour at the time of his injury, albeit earning $6.00 per hour for the preceding months. A calculation of his weekly compensation rate at an hourly wage of $6.00 does not adequately reflect his employment history. The Workers' Compensation Court should have utilized a pay period which reflected his actual wage at the time of his injury, which was $7.25 per hour. Deshner has demonstrated that there is good cause to use a pay period which accurately reflects his actual wages at the time of the injury to determine his weekly compensation benefit. This decision also conforms with the public policy of the State regarding wage-loss benefits. Section 39-71-105, MCA, states in pertinent part:
We hold that the Workers' Compensation Court incorrectly determined the claimant's total temporary disability compensation rate because the Workers' Compensation Court should have applied Section 39-71-123(3)(b), MCA. We reverse and remand for entry of an order for temporary total disability benefits consistent with this opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. CHIEF JUSTICE TURNAGE, JUSTICES GRAY, TRIEWEILER and WEBER concur. |
Use Back Button to return to Index of Cases