PUTNAM v CASTLE MOUNTAIN CORP

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

I N THE SUPREME COURT O F THE STATE OF MONTANA No. TOM W. 84-323 PUTNAM, Claimant and Appellant, CASTLE MOUNTAIN CORPORATION, Employer, UNITED P A C I F I C / R E L I A N C E COMPANY, INSURANCE D e f e n d a n t and R e s p o n d e n t , and LEONARD N I E L S E N , d / b / a N I E L S E N LOGGING, Employer and Respondent, and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND. and DIVISION OF WORKERS' - Y: =; COMPENSATION, , k c i-,i tz .r " %0' ".,e3 L Defendants and Respondents. O R D E R W e h a v e now c o n s i d e r e d t h e p e t i t i o n s for rehearing f i l e d P u t n a m a n d State C o m p e n s a t i o n I n s u r a n c e o n behalf of Tom W. Fund. have concluded t h a t a We revision i n our o p i n i o n i s appropriate. I T I S ORDERED: 1. lowing decided T h a t the the June f u l l paragraph set f o r t h i m m e d i a t e l y fol- statement 13, issues of 1985, on page 2 i s hereby w i t h d r a w n , paragraph being as follows: of our o p i n i o n the withdrawn " I n i t i a l l y t h e r e were d i s p u t e s a s t o t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e i n s u r e r and t h e e x t e n t o f c o v e r a g e , a l l o f w h i c h h a v e b e e n resolved. The r e s p o n d e n t i n t h i s p r o c e e d i-s S t a t e Compensation I n s u r a n c e Fund ing ( S t a t e Fund) ." I n p l a c e of s u c h withdrawn p a r a g r a p h , t h e f o l l o w i n g p a r a g r a p h is hereby i n s e r t e d i n o u r opinion: "There i s a d i s p u t e a s t o t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e employer o f t h e c l a i m a n t . The Worke r s ' Compensation C o u r t found t h a t c l a i m a n t 'was a n e m p l o y e e o f e i t h e r N i e l s e n o r t h e d e f e n d a n t C a s t l e Mountain C o r p o r a tion.' The r e s p o n d e n t i n t h i s p r o c e e d i n g i s S t a t e Compensation Insurance Fund ( S t a t e F u n d ) , which h a s a g r e e d t o a c c e p t l i a b i l i t y f o r t h e claimant's claim with a re'servation of rights against Castle Mountain C o r p o r a t i o n a n d i t s i n s u r a n c e carrier. W e d o n o t r u l e upon w h i c h p a r t y was t h e e m p l o y e r o f t h e c l a i m a n t . " 2. With t h e e x c e p t i o n o f t h e a c t i o n t a k e n i n p a r a g r a p h 1, t h e p e t i t i o n s f o r r e h e a r i n g a r e d e n i e d . 3. The o p i n i o n i n t h e a b o v e c a u s e d a t e d J u n e 1 3 , 1 9 8 5 , a s m o d i f i e d by t h e a b o v e p a r a g r a p h c h a n g e , i s approved and c o n s t i t u t e s t h e f i n a l o inion i n t h i s cause. DATED t h i s 4.J 7 %ay o f J u l y , 1985. Justice W e concur: ., ' - A'- ,q,TL,& ccr(cyief Justice 0 '-' No. 84-323 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MOlJTANA 1985 Claimant and Appellant, CASTLE b10UNTAIN CORPORATION , Employer, and UNITED PACIFIC/mLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent, and LEONARD NIELSEN, d/b/a NIELSEN LOGGING, Employer and Respondent, and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, and DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, Defendants and Respondents. APPEAL FROM: Workers' compensation Court, The Honorable Timothy Reardon, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: William T. Kelly, P.C.; Halverson, Sheehy, Prindle Finn; Patrick Prindle, Billings, Montana h For Respondents: Hughes, Helena, Keefer, Keefer, Kellner, Sullivan & Alke; John Sullivan, Montana Roybal, Hansen, Stacey & Jarussi; Neil Billings, Montana Submitted on Briefs: Decided: Filed: SUN e : 1985 3 Clerk Jan. 24, 1985 June 13, 1985 Mr. J u s t i c e F r e d J. Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t . T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from t h e o r d e r o f t h e W o r k e r s ' Compen- s a t i o n C o u r t g r a n t i n g p a r t i a l summary judgment. The a p p e a l challenges t h e court's refusal t o apply t h e s t a t u t o r y penalty t o medical benefits and a total disability benefits. portion of t h e weekly temporary W e modify a p o r t i o n o f t h e o r d e r a n d remand t h e c a u s e f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s . The i s s u e s a r e : 1. Does t h e p e n a l t y p o r t i o n o f S 39-71-2907, MCA a p p l y t o medica 1 b e n e f i t s ? 2. S 39-71-2907, How s h o u l d t h e p e n a l t y p r o v i s i o n s o f MA be applied t o t h e following: C (a) date of Temporary t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s from t h e i n j u r y on October 6 , w e r e d u e on J u l y 2 5 , 1981 t o J u l y 25, 1983, which 1 9 8 3 and n o t p a i d u n t i l a f t e r O c t o b e r 11, 1983. (b) M e d i c a l b e n e f i t s d u e on J u l y 25, 1 9 8 3 and n o t p a i d u n t i l a f t e r O c t o b e r 1 1 , 1983. 3. Did t h e t e m p o r a r y t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y r a t e awarded t h e c l a i m a n t p r o p e r l y i n c l u d e a l l wages e a r n e d a t t h e t i m e o f h i s injury? I n i t i a l l y t h e r e w e r e disputes a s t o t h e 1-dentity of t h e i n s u r e r and t h e e x t e n t o f resolved. a l l . o f which have b e e n The r e s p o n d e n t i n t h i s p r o c e e d i n g i s S t a t e Compen- s a t i o n I n s u r a n c e Fund Claimant accidents. coverage, suffered H e was ( S t a t e Fund) injuries injured . in two on J a n u a r y different 16, unrelated 1981, w h i l e em- ployed by a d i f f e r e n t employer a s a t r u c k d r i v e r , receiving w e e k l y wages o f $340 b a s e d upon a r a t e o f $8.50 p e r h o u r . As a r e s u l t o f t h a t u n r e l a t e d a c c i d e n t , c l a i m a n t r e c e i v e d tempo- r a r y t o t a l c o m p e n s a t i o n b e n e f i t s o f $219 p e r week f r o m J a n u a r y 1 6 , 1 9 8 1 t o o n o r a b o u t November 1 0 , 1 9 8 1 . On O c t o b e r 6 , 1981, while employed for a few days by Leonard Nielsen, c l a i m a n t was s e v e r e l y i n j u r e d when a dump t r u c k r a n o v e r h i m . Initially, the State October 6 , 1981 a c c i d e n t . Fund denied the claim for the The u n d i s p u t e d f i n d i n g s o f f a c t b y t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t i n c l u d e t h e f o l l o w i n g : I n J u l y 1 9 8 1 , t h e S t a t e Fund s e n t N i e l - s e n ( e m p l o y e r ) 1. a premium statement for 1 t o June April 30, 1981. That s t a t e m e n t n o t i f i e d N i e l s e n t h a t p a y m e n t o f t h e amount d u e was t o b e made w i t h i n 30 d a y s o f t h e s t a t e m e n t o r c o v e r a g e would be cancelled. On 2. Nielsen, September the State 2, Fund 1981, sent following Nielsen a non-payment "courtesy by notice" s t a t i n q t h a t h i s c o v e r a g e was s c h e d u l e d f o r c a n c e l l a t i o n on O c t o b e r 1 , 1981. On O c t o b e r 8 , 1 3 8 1 ( 2 d a y s a f t e r c l a i m a n t ' s i n j u r y ) , 3. N i e l s e n ' s p a y m e n t was r e c e i v e d b y t h e S t a t e Fund. 4. T h r o u g h some t y p e o f a mix-up w i t h i n t h e S t a t e F u n d , t h e p a y m e n t was n o t p r o p e r l y n o t e d a n d N i e l s e n ' s c o v e r a g e was cancelled. 5. A t the t i m e of the claimant's accident, i t was t h e p o l i c y o f t h e S t a t e Fund t o a l l o w a n e m p l o y e r a t e n d a y g r a c e period from t h e d a t e o f c a n c e l l a t i o n . ( N i e l s e n ' s p a y m e n t on O c t o b e r 8 was made w i t h i n t h e t e n d a y p e r i o d from t h e c a n c e l l a t i o n d a t e o f October 1, 1981.) On O c t o b e r 2 6 , 6. claim for 1981, c l a i m a n t ' s a t t o r n e y forwarded a compensation in which Nielsen was listed as employer. 7. By Compensation letter dated Division October advised 29, 1981, claimant's the Workers' attorney that N i e l s e n was u n i n s u r e d . The W o r k e r s ' was no further Compensation communication Court between also the found that Division there or the S t a t e Fund and c l a i m a n t f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 7 m o n t h s . ant's attorney received a called State Fund on March letter advising t h a t Nielsen's Claim- 18, 1983, policy was and can- c e l l e d b y S t a t e Fund on O c t o b e r 1, 1 9 8 1 f o r f a i l u r e t o p a y C l a i m a n t f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r emergency h e a r - t h e premiums. ing. A t that point, t h e S t a t e Fund s t a r t e d a n i n q u i r y i n t o i t s p r i o r d e t e r m i n a t i o n on t h e q u e s t i o n o f c o v e r a g e . On J u l y 2 5 , 1 9 8 3 , t h e B u r e a u C h i e f o f t h e S t a t e Fund was a d v i s e d t h a t Nielsen's c o v e r a g e was i n e f f e c t on O c t o b e r 6, 1981. The S t a t e Fund d e t e r m i n e d t h a t it s h o u l d a c c e p t l i a b i l i t y f o r t h e claimant's claim. V a r i o u s p r o c e d u r a l s t e p s f o l l o w e d , and t h e S t a t e Fund g a v e a number o f a s s u r a n c e s r e g a r d i n g a c c e p t a n c e o f l i a b i l i t y and i t s w i l l i n g n e s s t o pay b o t h compensation and medical b e n e f i t s . On October 11, 1983, the Workers' Compensation Court h e a r d o r a l a r g u m e n t o n t h e c a s e a n d o r d e r e d t h e S t a t e Fund t o make p a y m e n t s o f b o t h medical b e n e f i t s and temporary t o t a l disability benefits. The c o u r t t h e n c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e 1 9 8 1 d e n i a l o f l i a b i l i t y f o r c l a i m a n t ' s c l a i m was n o t u n r e a s o n a b l e w i t h i n t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e p e n a l t y s t a t u t e , 5 39-71-2907, However, t h e c o u r t a l s o reached the MCA. following conclusions: "Despite i t s continued agreement t o do so, t h e S t a t e Fund had n o t p a i d c o m p e n s a t i o n a n d m e d i c a l benefits t o t h e claimant a s of t h e date of o r a l argument. T h i s d e l a y was u n r e a s o n a b l e , and i n v i t e s a penalty. The d i f f i c u l t y l i e s i n d e t e r m i n i n g a t w h a t p o i n t t h e S t a t e Fund s h o u l d h a v e r e a s o n a b l y r e a l i z e d i t s e r r o r and p r o m p t l y t e n d e r e d t h e s e benefits. ... "The Fund a c t e d p r o m p t l y t o a s c e r t a i n t h e t r u t h o f t h e improper c a n c e l l a t i o n a l l e g a t i o n found i n t h e P e t i t i o n , b u t i t s d e l a y from J u l y 2 5 , 1983, t o t h e o r d e r o f b e n e f i t s ( O c t o b e r 11, 1 9 8 3 ) was u n r e a s o n able. T h e r e f o r e a 20% p e n a l t y s h a l l b e a s s e s s e d t o temporary t o t a l b e n e f i t s due t h e c l a i m a n t d u r i n g t h a t period. " The c o u r t t h e n a d j u d g e d t h a t c l a i m a n t w a s e n t i t l e d t o a 2 0 % i n c r e a s e i n h i s temporary t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s f r o m J u l y 2 5 , 1 9 8 3 u n t i l O c t o b e r 11, 1 9 8 3 . Does t h e p e n a l t y p o r t i o n o f 39-71-2907, M A apply t o C medical b e n e f i t s ? The p e r t i n e n t p o r t i o n o f § 39-71-2907, MCA i s : "When p a y m e n t o f c o m p e n s a t i o n h a s b e e n u n r e a s o n a b l y d e l a y e d o r r e f u s e d by an i n s u r e r , e i t h e r p r i o r o r subsequent t o t h e i s s u a n c e o f an o r d e r by t h e workers' compensation judge g r a n t i n g a c l a i m a n t compensation b e n e f i t s , t h e f u l l amount o f t h e compensation b e n e f i t s due a c l a i m a n t , between t h e t i m e compensation b e n e f i t s w e r e d e l a y e d o r r e f u s e d and t h e d a t e o f t h e o r d e r g r a n t i n g a c l a i m a n t c o m p e n s a t i o n b e n e f i t s , may b e i n c r e a s e d b y t h e w o r k e r s ' compensation judge by 20%." T h i s issue h a s j u s t been r e s o l v e d by t h e c a s e o f C a r l s o n v. Cain (Mont. 19851, P.2d , t h a t c a s e , w e concluded t h a t a n award 4 2 St.Rep. 695. f o r medical In payments may b e i n c r e a s e d b y t h e W o r k e r s ' C o m p e n s a t i o n C o u r t p u r s u a n t to t h e foregoing s t a t u t e . How s h o u l d t h e p e n a l t y p r o v i s i o n s o f S 39-71-2907, MA C be a p p l i e d t o t h e f o l l o w i n g : (a) Temporary t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s from t h e d a t e o f i n j u r y on O c t o b e r 6 , 1 9 8 1 t o J u l y 2 5 , 1 9 8 3 , w h i c h w e r e d u e on J u l y 2 5 , (b) 1983 and n o t p a i d u n t i l a f t e r O c t o b e r 1 1 , 1983. Medical b e n e f i t s due on J u l y 25, 1983 and n o t p a i d u n t i l a f t e r O c t o b e r 11, 1 9 8 3 . As t o 25, ( a ) weekly b e n e f i t s from October 6, 1981 t o J u l y 1983, t h e lower c o u r t found a r e a s o n a b l e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e f a i l u r e t o pay. I t t h e r e f o r e concluded t h a t t h e d e l a y i n p a y m e n t u p t o J u l y 2 5 , 1 9 8 3 was n o t a p r o p e r b a s i s f o r p e n a l ty. In its order of partial subsequent order denying the in its rehearing, the summary j u d g m e n t petition for and Workers' Compensation Court concluded t h a t t h e p e n a l t y was w a r r a n t e d o n c e t h e S t a t e Fund a c k n o w l e d g e d i t w a s l i a b l e f o r compensation b e n e f i t s on J u l y 25, concluded which that accrued The the penalty between July stipulation of O c t o b e r 11, 1 9 8 3 , the 1983. should 25, be The c o u r t further assessed on b e n e f i t s 1983 and O c t o b ~ r 11, 1 9 8 3 . the parties established t h a t a s of f o l l o w i n g a m o u n t s w e r e d u e from t h e S t a t e Fund t o t h e c l a i m a n t : P a s t due medical expenses $26,048.70 P a s t due temporary t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y 11,979.42 Lump sum a d v a n c e 5,852.00 Tota 1 $43,880.12 W e d i s r e g a r d t h e lump sum a d v a n c e of $ 5 , 8 5 2 . 0 0 , was n o t a p a s t d u e p o r t i o n t h e claim. of It appears t h a t s u b s t a n t i a l l y a l l o f t h e medica 1 e x p e n s e s o f the past $11,979.42 1983. due temporary were actually total due to $26,048.70 and benefits of disability the as that claimant on July 25, The l o w e r c o u r t i n c o r r e c t l y a s s u m e d t h a t n o p a r t o f temporary total disability benefits or medical benefits a l r e a d y d u e on J u l y 2 5 , 1 9 8 3 c o u l d b e s u b j e c t t o t h e s t a t u t o - ry penalty. To t h e e x t e n t t h a t b o t h m e d i c a l b e n e f i t s a n d t e m p o r a r y total disability benefits fact been paid by d u e on October subject t o a penalty. 11, July 1983, 25, such 1983 had n o t i n a m o u n t s may be The amount o f s u c h a p e n a l t y i s t o b e d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e c o u r t a t i t s d i s c r e t i o n u n d e r 5 39-71-2907, MCA. The r e c o r d i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o a l l o w u s t o d e t e r m i n e the extent of t h e p e n a l t y as t o e i t h e r medical b e n e f i t s or temporary t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s found t o b e due on J u l y 25, 1983. I n a d d i t i o n , i t would n o t b e a p p r o p r i a t e f o r u s t o a t t e m p t t o make a d e c i s i o n t h a t 5 39-71-2907, MCA, t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e Workers' Compensation judge. commits t o In regard t o Issue 2 t h e Workers' extent of Compensation C o u r t the penalty, ( b ) , w e remand t h e c a u s e t o ( a ) and i f f o r determination a s t o t h e any, to be charged upon those b e n e f i t s which w e r e due on J u l y 25, 1983. I11 Did the temporary total disability rate awarded the c l a i m a n t p r o p e r l y i n c l u d e a l l wages e a r n e d a t t h e t i m e o f h i s i njury? On March tered 3, 1983, findings of Putnam v . Edson t h e Workers' fact, Compensation C o u r t en- conclusions of Express, Inc., law and judgment a n d Home in I n s u r a n c e Company. The Edson E x p r e s s c a s e i n v o l v e d a c l a i m b y t h e p r e s e n t c l a i m a n t f o r a d d i t i o n a l temporary t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y based on i n j u - ries from t h e J a n u a r y 1 6 , 1981 a c c i d e n t , which h e c l a i m e d had been aggravated by t h e October 6 , ers' Compensation Court 1981 a c c i d e n t . concluded that The Work- claimant was not temporarily t o t a l l y disabled a s a r e s u l t o f t h e January 16, 1981 a c c i d e n t and that the January accident was not the proximate cause o f c l a i m a n t ' s c u r r e n t c o n d i t i o n . The c o u r t further temporary pointed out that claimant t o t a l disability benefits of 1981 t o on or were total benefits carrier. The c o u r t n o t e d , received $219 p e r week f r o m J a n u a r y 1 6 , a b o u t November temporary had 10, 1981, t i m e the a t which terminated by the insurance "The i n s u r e r h a s c o n t i n u e d t o p a y biweekly p a r t i a l compensation b e n e f i t s t o t h e c l a i m a n t a t t h e maximum $109.50 rate." The c o u r t also specified that the e v i d e n c e was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o a l l o w t h e c o u r t t o make a d e t e r mination which the of the permanent c l a i m a n t may be partial disability entitled. There benefits i s no to further e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e S t a t e Fund ' s p a y m e n t o f p a r t i a l compensation benefits of $109.50 f r o m November 10, 1981 t o on or a b o u t March 3 , 1 9 8 3 . The o r d e r d o e s e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e r e had b e e n n o award o f p e r m a n e n t p a r t i a l d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s . C l a i m a n t was i n j u r e d o n O c t o b e r 6 , 1981, w h i l e e a r n i n g $6 p e r h o u r o r $240 p e r week f r o m L e o n a r d N i e l s e n . Claimant s t a t e s t h a t t h i s t e m p o r a r y j o b was t o l a s t o n l y a f e w d a y s , and that he began working f o r Neilsen in October 1981 i n o r d e r t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r h e was a g a i n c a p a b l e o f working. Claimant argues that the employment w i t h Nielsen was o n l y t e m p o r a r y employment and t h a t h i s p e r m a n e n t e m p l o y m e n t r a t e w a s $340 p e r w e e k , w h i c h h e h a d r e c e i v e d w h i l e w o r k i n g f o r Edson E x p r e s s p r i o r t o J a n u a r y 1 6 , 1981. In the alterna- t i v e , h e a r g u e s t h a t t h e amount o f $ 1 0 9 . 5 0 p e r week compensat i o n b e n e f i t s f r o m Home I n s u r a n c e Company s h o u l d b e a d d e d t o t h e N e i l - s e n w e e k l y wage o f $240. S e c t i o n 39-71-701 ( I ) , MCA, i n pertinent p a r t provides: " ( 1 ) Weekly c o m p e n s a t i o n b e n e f i t s f o r i n j u r y producing t o t a l temporary d i s a b i l i t y s h a l l b e 66 2 / 3 % o f t h e w a g e s received a t t h e t i m e of t h e injury. . . ." S e c t i o n 39-71-116, MCA, d e f i n e s "temporary t o t a l d i s a b i l - i t y " and " w a g e s " a s f o l l o w s : "(19) ' T e m p o r a r y t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y ' means a c o n d i t i o n r e s u l t i n g from an i n j u r y a s defined i n t h i s chapter t h a t r e s u l t s i n t o t a l l o s s o f w a g e s and e x i s t s u n t i l t h e i n j u r e d worker i s a s f a r r e s t o r e d a s t h e permanent c h a r a c t e r o f t h e i n j u r i e s w i l l permit. D i s a b i l i t y s h a l l b e supported by a preponderance of medical evidence. " ( 2 0 ) 'Wages' means t h e a v e r a g e g r o s s e a r n i n g s r e c e i v e d b y t h e employee a t t h e t i m e of t h e i n j u r y f o r t h e usual hours of employment i n a w e e k , a n d o v e r t i m e i s n o t t o be considered. . . ." At the t i m e of t h e October 6 , 1981 a c c i d e n t , was r e c e i v i n g a w e e k l y wage o f $ 2 4 0 . claimant T h a t amount c o n s t i t u t e s h i s "average g r o s s earnings" under t h e s t a t u t e . The f a c t s d o not demonstrate a reason f o r c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e wages p a i d by nine a different employer months prior to the present i n j u r y can be considered a s t h e average g r o s s earnings a t t h e t i m e o f i njury. conclude t h e r e We i s no b a s i s f o r using the $340 p e r week p a i d p r i o r t o J a n u a r y 1 6 , 1 9 8 1 a s t h e p e r m a n e n t e m p l o y ment for claimant a t the t i m e of rate t h e October 6, 1981 accident. Claimant a r g u e s i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e t h a t h i s wages a s o f October 6, 1981 should include partial compensation b e n e f i t s the as t o t h e n a t u r e o f t h e $109.50 awarded total in disability connection accident. This nature permanent of suggests the that partial as for p a y m e n t s b e i n g made by H o m e benefits with paid The r e c o r d i s i n c o m p l e t e payment i s 50% o f t h e The a m o u n t o f t h e $ 1 0 9 . 5 0 temporary being by t h e i n s u r a n c e company h i s f o r m e r employer, Edson E x p r e s s . Insurance. $109.50 of $219.00, 16 January which was Edson Express s u c h p a y m e n t s may be i n disability benefit the payments. C l a i m a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e $109.50 s h o u l d b e added t o h i s $ 2 4 0 . 0 0 w e e k l y wage i n c o m p u t i n g t h e t e m p o r a r y t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s t o which h e i s e n t i t l e d f o r t h e October 6 a c c i dent. It is n o t T h i s t y p e o f s t a c k i n g would n o t b e p r o p e r . c o m p a r a b l e t o t h e s t a c k i n g o f wages from c o n c u r r e n t employrnent w h i c h h a s b e e n approved i n other cases. In t h i s in- s t a n c e , i t would b e u n f a i r t o i n c l u d e t h e $ 1 0 9 . 5 0 p a y m e n t s i n t h e w e e k l y wage a n d p a y 2 / 3 o f t h a t $ 1 0 9 . 5 0 a s a part of the temporary the total disability benefits, while claimant a t t h e same t i m e r e c e i v e d t h e $ 1 0 9 . 5 0 p a y m e n t s f r o m Home I n s u r ance i n connection with t h e o t h e r accident. W e t h e r e f o r e a f f i r m t h e award o f a b i l i t y by the Workers' Compensation temporary t o t a l Court based upon disthe a v e r a g e w e e k l y wage o f $ 2 4 0 . 0 0 . W e remand t h i s c a u s e t o t h e W o r k e r s ' Compensation C o u r t f o r f u r t h e r a c t i o n i n accordance with t h i s opinion. We c o n c u r : t

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.