Case Title: Balbir Brar Inc. v. Consolidated Trading

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: virginia

Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Date: 1996-11-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 
 
 
Present:  Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judges Frank and Clements 
Argued at Alexandria, Virginia 
 
 
ROBERT C. GRANT 
 
 
 
MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 
v. 
Record No. 1960-01-4 
JUDGE JEAN HARRISON CLEMENTS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  SEPTEMBER 24, 2002 
ROBERT C. GRANT AND 
 VANLINER INSURANCE COMPANY 
 
 
 
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 
 
 
 
David L. Bayne, Jr. (Ashcraft & Gerel, LLP, 
on brief), for appellant. 
 
 
 
S. Vernon Priddy III (Sands Anderson Marks & 
Miller, on brief), for appellees. 
 
 
 
Robert C. Grant (claimant), the sole proprietor of a moving 
business, appeals a decision of the Workers' Compensation 
Commission (commission) finding his pre-injury average weekly 
wage impermissibly included earnings attributable to his wife.  
Based on that finding, the commission reduced claimant's 
pre-injury average weekly wage by thirty percent, terminated his 
benefits as of January 1, 2000, and awarded his business's 
insurance carrier, Vanliner Insurance Company (insurer), a credit 
of $43,803.43.  The sole issue on appeal is whether the commission 
erred in reducing claimant's pre-injury average weekly wage.  
Finding no error, we affirm the commission's decision. 
                     
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not 
designated for publication. 
 
As the parties are fully conversant with the record in this 
case and because this memorandum opinion carries no precedential 
value, this opinion recites only those facts and incidents of the 
proceedings as necessary to the parties' understanding of the 
disposition of this appeal. 
 
On May 25, 1997, claimant sustained a work-related injury 
to his back while lifting a box.  At the time of the accident, 
claimant was self-employed as the owner/operator of Grant 
Trucking, a moving business that transported household goods 
under contract with Smith's Transfer and Mayflower Transit.  
Insurer accepted the claim as compensable and paid claimant 
benefits pursuant to a compensation award entered by the 
commission on June 3, 1998. 
 
The commission's award was based on the parties' memoranda 
of agreement, which indicated that claimant's pre-injury average 
weekly wage was $1,117.65.  This figure was calculated using the 
$58,118.00 net profit shown for Grant Trucking on Schedule C of 
the 1040 tax form filed jointly by claimant and his wife for 
1996.  In the performance of that calculation, the entire 
$58,118.00 profit was treated as claimant's income.  Based on 
the pre-injury average weekly wage of $1,117.65, claimant 
received $334.84 per week in temporary partial compensation 
benefits from August 25, 1997, through August 6, 2000, the date 
of the last payment, for a total of $51,565.36. 
 
 
- 2 -
 
Following the injury, claimant returned to light duty work, 
earning an average weekly wage of $643.16 in 1997, $635.35 in 
1998, and $754.81 in 1999.  As of June 6, 2000, claimant's gross 
pay for the year was $22,153.60, yielding an average weekly wage 
of $981.49.  Claimant did not report these increases in his 
earnings to insurer. 
 
Insurer filed applications with the commission on August 1, 
2000, and September 28, 2000, seeking, on the grounds of 
imposition or mistake of fact, a reduction of claimant's 
pre-injury average weekly wage commensurate with that percentage 
of Grant Trucking's net profit for 1996 that was attributable to 
claimant's wife's contributions to the business.  Finding that 
thirty percent of Grant Trucking's net profit shown on the 
jointly filed 1996 Schedule C tax form was attributable to 
wife's work, the commission reduced claimant's pre-injury 
average weekly wage by thirty percent, from $1,117.65 to 
$782.36.  Based on that reduction, the commission found that 
claimant, whose average weekly wage in 2000 was $981.49, returned 
to work as of January 1, 2000, at a wage greater than his 
pre-injury average weekly wage.  Accordingly, the commission 
terminated claimant's benefits as of January 1, 2000.  In light of 
that termination and the lower amount of compensation owed 
claimant because of his reduced pre-injury average weekly wage, 
the commission awarded insurer a credit of $43,803.43. 
 
 
- 3 -
 
On appeal, all of claimant's challenges stem from his 
contention that the commission erred in reducing his pre-injury 
average weekly wage by thirty percent.  The evidence, claimant 
argues, did not establish that his wife's efforts provided a 
benefit to his business.  Accordingly, he concludes, the 
commission erred in finding that thirty percent of his 
business's net profit in 1996 was attributable to his wife.  We 
disagree. 
 
In reviewing the commission's decision, we view the 
evidence in the light most favorable to the party prevailing 
before the commission.  See Allen & Rocks, Inc. v. Briggs, 28 
Va. App. 662, 672, 508 S.E.2d 335, 340 (1998).  The commission's 
factual findings are conclusive and binding on appeal if 
supported by credible evidence in the record.  Southern Iron 
Works, Inc. v. Wallace, 16 Va. App. 131, 134, 428 S.E.2d 32, 34 
(1993). 
 
It [is] the duty of the [c]ommission to 
make the best possible estimate of future 
impairments of earnings from the evidence 
adduced at the hearing, and to determine the 
average weekly wage that [the claimant] was 
able to earn.  This is a question of fact to 
be determined by the [c]ommission which, if 
based on credible evidence, will not be 
disturbed on appeal. 
 
 
 
Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc. v. Reeves, 1 Va. App. 435, 441, 339 
S.E.2d 570, 573 (1986).  "Thus, if credible evidence supports 
the commission's findings regarding the claimant's average 
weekly wage, we must uphold those findings."  Chesapeake Bay 
- 4 -
Seafood House v. Clements, 14 Va. App. 143, 146, 415 S.E.2d 864, 
866 (1992). 
 
Moreover, the commission has "the power and authority not 
only to make and enforce its awards, but to protect itself and 
its awards from fraud, imposition and mistake."  Harris v. 
Diamond Constr. Co., 184 Va. 711, 720, 36 S.E.2d 573, 577 
(1946). 
 
It is well settled that an employee's 
average weekly wage, even after being agreed 
to by the parties and set forth in an award 
of the commission, is subject to 
modification upon the grounds of fraud, 
misrepresentation, mistake or imposition.  
It is immaterial whether the mistake of fact 
is mutual or unilateral. 
 
Mercy Tidewater Ambulance Serv. v. Carpenter, 29 Va. App. 218, 
226, 511 S.E.2d 418, 421-22 (1999) (citations omitted).  The 
burden is upon the party attacking the award to establish 
mistake by clear and convincing evidence.  J & D Masonry, Inc. 
v. Kornegay, 224 Va. 292, 295, 295 S.E.2d 887, 889 (1982). 
 
Here, the parties initially agreed to a pre-injury average 
weekly wage of $1,117.65, which was calculated by dividing the 
full $58,118.00 net profit shown on Schedule C of claimant's 
1040 tax form by fifty-two.  However, as the commission found, 
the tax form was not filed just by the 
claimant but was a joint filing, 
representing the earnings of the claimant 
and his wife.  This, together with the 
claimant's testimony that his wife drove 
about 40 percent of the time, that she owned 
the truck and performed other valuable 
administrative duties, proves the average 
 
 
- 5 -
weekly wage impermissibly included earnings 
attributable to the claimant's wife. 
 
Examining the driving logs of claimant and his wife, the 
commission further found that, during the thirty-six "haul 
dates" occurring between January 5, 1996, and February 23, 1997, 
"claimant's wife drove 5,695 miles while the claimant drove 
13,260 miles.  Thus," the commission continued, "on those dates, 
the claimant's wife drove 30 percent of the time."  Accordingly, 
the commission found that claimant's pre-injury average weekly 
wage should be reduced by thirty percent, from $1,117.65 to 
$782.36. 
 
The commission's findings are supported by credible clear 
and convincing evidence, including the jointly filed tax form; 
claimant's testimony that his wife owned the truck, performed 
administrative duties for the business, and drove forty percent 
of the time; and the driving logs.  As fact finder, the 
commission could permissibly infer from such evidence that, in 
initially calculating claimant's pre-injury average weekly wage, 
the parties mistakenly used the full net profit listed on the 
joint tax form, rather than only that portion of the business's 
net profit that represented claimant's earnings.  The commission 
could also permissibly infer from the evidence that thirty 
percent of the net profit shown on the tax form was attributable 
to wife's contributions to the business. 
 
 
- 6 -
 
We hold, therefore, that the commission did not err in 
reducing claimant's pre-injury average weekly wage from 
$1,117.65 to $782.36 and, based on that reduction, did not err 
in terminating claimant's compensation benefits as of January 1, 
2000, and awarding insurer a credit of $43,803.43.   
 
Accordingly, we affirm the commission's decision. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Affirmed.   
 
 
- 7 -