Case Title: Biddle v. Kraft Foods, Inc.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 58, 2005

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2005-06-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JOHN BIDDLE, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 58, 2005     
 
Claimant-Appellant Below, 
§ 
                    Appellant, 
 
§ 
Court Below: Superior Court of 
 
 
 
§ 
the State of Delaware in and for 
             v. 
 
 
§ 
Kent County 
 
 
 
§ 
KRAFT FOODS, INC., 
 
§ 
C. A. No. 04A-04-003  
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Employer-Appellee Below, 
§ 
 
                    Appellee. 
 
§ 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 8, 2005 
 
 
Decided: 
June 14, 2005 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 14th day of June 2005, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties 
and the record in this case, it appears to the Court that: 
 
1. The claimant-below appellant, John Biddle, appeals from an order of 
the Industrial Accident Board (“IAB”) setting Biddle’s wage rate for purposes of 
his workers’ compensation claim.   Biddle claims that the IAB erred in setting his 
wage rate at the hourly “straight time” rate provided in his contract, because at the 
time he was injured he was working overtime and earning double his contractual 
wage rate.  Because the IAB correctly set Biddle’s wage rate at his “straight time” 
rate rather than the “double time” rate, and because the IAB’s decision was based 
on substantial evidence, and free from legal error, we affirm. 
 
2
  2. Biddle was injured in a compensable industrial accident while 
employed by Kraft Foods.  At the time of his injury, Biddle was a contract 
employee earning $16.7030 in “straight time” hourly pay.  Under the union 
agreement in force at the time of the accident, Biddle earned “overtime” whenever 
he worked hours outside his regular shift.  When Biddle worked overtime, he 
accumulated two hours of paid time for every hour that he worked.  At the time 
Biddle was injured, he was working outside his regular shift and was earning 
“double time” hours. 
3. The only issue before the IAB was the proper wage rate to which Biddle 
was entitled for purposes of calculating his workers’ compensation benefits.  
Biddle claims that his wage rate should be a “double time” rate of $33.4060 
($16.7030 x 2), because he was working overtime when he was injured.  The IAB 
disagreed, and held that under Delaware law, the applicable wage rate was 
Biddle’s straight wage rate of $16.7030.  Biddle appeals from that ruling. 
4. This Court reviews the IAB’s legal conclusions de novo, and reviews the 
IAB’s factual findings to determine whether they are supported by substantial 
 
3
evidence.1  Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable 
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.2   
5. In order to award worker’s compensation benefits, the IAB was required 
to determine an employee’s “wage rate.”  Section 2302(a) defines “wages” as “the 
money rate at which the service rendered is recompensed under the contract of 
hiring in force at the time of the accident.”3  Under Section 2302(b), an employee’s 
weekly wage rate is calculated by multiplying his hourly wage rate times “the 
number of … hours in an average work week of the employee’s employer at the 
time of the injury.  Biddle claims that under his contract with Kraft, his hourly 
wage rate at the time of the accident was $33.4060, because he was working 
overtime at the time of the accident. 
                                          
 
1 Flax v. State, No. 450, 2003, 2004 WL 1535816 (Del. Jun. 29, 2004) (citing Scheers v. Indep. 
Newspapers, 832 A.2d 1244, 1246-47 (Del. 2003)). 
 
2 Oceanport Ind. v. Wilmington Stevedores, 636 A.2d 892, 899 (Del. 1994). 
 
3 19 Del. C. § 2302(a) (emphasis added). 
 
 
4
6. Biddle relies upon Rubick v. Security Instrument Corporation4 as support 
for his position.  In Rubick, this Court interpreted the language of Section 2302(b), 
which provides that under “exceptional circumstances,” an employee’s weekly 
wages may be calculated based on an average employee’s average earnings for six 
months of similar employment.”  In Rubick, based on that statutory language, the 
IAB concluded that because Rubick’s current contract paid significantly more than 
he ordinarily earned, “exceptional circumstances” required the IAB to calculate his 
wages based on the six-month average wage formula.  This Court overruled that 
decision, holding that the “exceptional circumstances” language applied only to 
output employees, but not to hourly employees.5   
7. Biddle contends that under Rubick, the IAB was required to award him 
wages based on his overtime pay, even though the overtime rate exceeded his 
“straight time” pay rate.  That argument misstates the ruling in Rubick, however, 
which simply limited the use of the six-month average wage formula to “output” 
employees. 
                                          
 
4 766 A.2d 15 (Del. 2000).  In Rubick, the claimant was employed by a company that contracted 
with various businesses.  Rubick’s pay rate fluctuated depending on the business with whom his 
employer was contracting.  At the time he was injured, Rubick was making $26.72 an hour, 
which greatly exceeded the wages he made under most other contracts.  The evidence showed 
that for the 6 months preceding the accident, Rubick averaged only $12.60 an hour.  The IAB 
concluded that calculating Rubick’s weekly wage using the $26.72 hourly rate would 
overcompensate Rubick.  This Court reversed that ruling, and held that under Section 2302, 
Rubick was entitled to the wages he was earning under the contract in force at the time of the 
accident, even though those wages greatly exceeded his average wages.4 
 
5 Id. 
 
5
8. Here, the IAB correctly set Biddle’s wages at $16.7030, the wage rate 
provided in the contract in force at the time of his accident.  Biddle’s contract 
never fixed his wages at $33.4060.  Rather, it provided that Biddle would be 
credited for two hours of work for every overtime hour he worked.  The IAB 
concluded that Biddle’s wage rate did not change when he worked overtime; 
instead, he simply accumulated hours more quickly.  The IAB took those extra 
hours into consideration in calculating the number of hours in Biddle’s average 
work week.  Accordingly, the IAB did not err in its ruling. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs    
 
 
                
 
 
 
                                       Justice