The Court of Appeals of Virginia, with Judges Coleman, Elder, and Senior Judge Cole, addressed the case of Jesse Wayne Edmonds against Creedle Sales Company, Inc. and Erie Insurance Company regarding the calculation of average weekly wage for workers' compensation benefits. The dispute involved whether Edmonds' two jobs—one at Creedle Sales and another with C. C. Powell & Sons—were sufficiently similar to allow for the combining of his salaries in determining his average weekly wage after sustaining a work-related injury on March 11, 1991.
Edmonds worked part-time at Creedle Sales for approximately eight and a half weeks, performing duties that included preparing used cars for resale and plumbing work. His full-time employment with Powell involved plumbing, heating service, electrical work, and some mechanical maintenance. Initially, a deputy commissioner ruled that the jobs were not similar enough for combined wage calculation. However, the full Workers’ Compensation Commission later reversed this decision, determining that the jobs were substantially similar and awarding benefits based on the combined salaries.
The Workers' Compensation Act defines average weekly wage as the earnings of the employee at the time of injury, allowing for the combination of earnings from multiple jobs if they are substantially similar. The court affirmed the commission's ruling, emphasizing that Virginia law supports the aggregation of earnings from concurrent employments that share a significant degree of similarity.
The employer argues that the commission incorrectly applied the 'substantially similar' standard from the Dodson case, which they claim is limited to situations where all duties and skills of one job are utilized in another job with a broader scope. However, this interpretation is rejected. The Dodson decision does not introduce a new standard; it asserts that jobs within the same general class can have combined wages, even if not all duties are identical. This aligns with the commission's prior understanding that no two jobs are exactly alike and that the entirety of job responsibilities should be considered.
The commission's interpretation of Dodson mistakenly narrowed the definition of 'primary mission' to a single, most important responsibility, rather than recognizing it as encompassing multiple duties. In this case, while the claimant's primary role at Creedle was identified as a plumber/pipe fitter, evidence shows that his main responsibility was as a mechanic, with significant plumbing duties as well. The claimant’s work at both Creedle and Powell involved substantial mechanical and plumbing tasks, indicating that the jobs were indeed substantially similar. The commission correctly combined the salaries from both positions to calculate the claimant's average weekly wage, leading to the affirmation of their award.
