Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves an appeal in a workers’ compensation claim where the appellant, a sales representative injured during employment, contested the calculation of his average weekly wage (AWW). The employer/carrier had used an AWW of $338.74 to determine temporary total disability (TTD) benefits, whereas the appellant argued for an increase to approximately $500. The Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) initially calculated the AWW based on the appellant’s actual earnings, dismissing the 13-week method and the similar employee method due to the appellant's limited employment duration and commission-based pay structure. However, the appellate court found this approach incorrect, referencing precedent from *Carvell v. Caviness Motor Co.*, which allows the similar employee method for such cases if certain criteria from *Coleman v. Burnup Sims* are satisfied. The appellant fulfilled these criteria, as he worked in the same role and location with comparable compensation to other employees. Consequently, the court reversed the JCC's decision, remanding the case for a recalculation of AWW, instructing the inclusion of comparable employees' bonuses. Judges Wentworth and Wigginton concurred with the decision to remand for further proceedings.
Legal Issues Addressed
Calculation of Average Weekly Wage (AWW) in Workers' Compensation Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant's AWW should be recalculated using the similar employee method, as the criteria for its application were met.
Reasoning: The court referenced its previous decision in *Carvell v. Caviness Motor Co.*, which affirmed that the similar employee method is applicable even for commission-based earnings, provided the criteria established in *Coleman v. Burnup Sims* are met.
Criteria for Applying the Similar Employee Methodsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant met the criteria for the similar employee method as he performed the same duties as other sales representatives, was compensated similarly, and worked in the same location.
Reasoning: The record indicated that the appellant met these criteria, as he performed the same duties as four other sales representatives, worked at the same dealership, and was compensated similarly.
Judicial Error in AWW Calculationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The JCC's decision to reject the similar employee method was reversed as erroneous, necessitating a recalculation of the appellant's AWW.
Reasoning: Consequently, the JCC's decision to not apply the similar employee method was deemed erroneous.