COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Coleman, Elder and Senior Judge Cole 

Argued at Richmond, Virginia 

CREEDLE SALES COMPANY, INC. and 

 ERIE INSURANCE COMPANY 

 OPINION BY 

v. Record No. 1041-96-2 JUDGE SAM W. COLEMAN III 

 JANUARY 21, 1997 

JESSE WAYNE EDMONDS 

 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 Lori Morris Whitten (Morris and Morris, on 

brief), for appellants. 

 B. Mayes Marks, Jr. (B. Mayes Marks, Jr., 

P.C., on brief), for appellee. 

 In this appeal from the Workers' Compensation Commission, we 

decide whether the claimant's two jobs were sufficiently similar 

to warrant combining his salary from both jobs in calculating his 

average weekly wage. We find that the jobs were substantially 

similar; thus, we affirm the commission's decision. 

 Jesse Wayne Edmonds (claimant) suffered a compensable injury 

by accident on March 11, 1991 while working for Creedle Sales 

Company, Inc. (employer). The employer stipulated that the 

claimant was entitled to compensation and paid temporary total 

disability benefits from March 18, 1991 to the present. The 

claimant requested a hearing, alleging that the compensation 

benefits should be based upon his combined wages earned at 

Creedle Sales and his second job with C. C. Powell & Sons 

(Powell). He asserts that his duties in both jobs, from which he 

is disabled, were substantially similar. 
- 2 - 

 On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable 

to the party prevailing below. R. G. Moore Bldg. Corp v. 

Mullins, 10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788 (1990). The 

claimant, who was a part-time employee, had worked for Creedle 

Sales for approximately eight and one-half weeks when he was 

injured. His work at Creedle involved preparing used cars for 

resale. Among his duties were changing batteries, hoses, and fan 

belts, checking transmissions, and doing minor auto repairs. 

Additionally, the claimant did a substantial amount of plumbing 

work for Creedle. The plumbing work included repairing and 

replacing broken water pipes, installing several new water 

storage tanks and numerous faucets, and installing a pressurized 

water storage tank and a hot water heater. The claimant 

estimated that, of the eight and one-half weeks he worked for the 

employer, he spent "a week or two" doing plumbing work. 

 The claimant worked full-time for Powell as a plumber. He 

testified that his job with Powell included: 

 Plumbing, installation of new plumbing and 

repair plumbing and repair heating service, 

electrical work. In the -- when we were -- 

if the work was caught up on the plumbing, 

we'd do mechanical work and service work, 

maintenance on the trucks, changing the oil, 

the tires, rotate brakes, new exhaust 

systems, et cetera. 

The current owner of C. C. Powell & Sons testified that the 

claimant worked primarily as a plumber and pipe fitter but 

occasionally did mechanical maintenance and repair work. 
- 3 - 

 The deputy commissioner found that the claimant's jobs were 

not sufficiently similar to justify combining the wages in 

calculating his average weekly wage. The claimant appealed to 

the full commission, which reversed the deputy and held that the 

jobs were substantially similar and awarded benefits based on an 

average weekly wage of the combined salaries. 

 The Workers' Compensation Act defines average weekly wage as 

"[t]he earnings of the injured employee in the employment in 

which he was working at the time of the injury . . . ." Code 

§ 65.2-101. When an injured employee is disabled from performing 

his employment duties, the employee's earnings include the 

earnings from two or more jobs that are substantially similar. 

See First Virginia Banks, Inc. v. McNeil, 8 Va. App. 342, 343, 

381 S.E.2d 357, 358 (1989); Hudson v. Arthur Treachers, 2 Va. 

App. 323, 326, 343 S.E.2d 97, 99 (1986). "Virginia follows the 

majority rule that when an employee is injured on one job while 

in concurrent employment, the average weekly wage compensated is 

based on the combined earnings of both jobs if, but only if, the 

employments are related or similar." County of Frederick Fire 

and Rescue v. Dodson, 20 Va. App. 440, 443, 457 S.E.2d 783, 784 

(1995). 

 The employer contends that the commission erred by applying 

the "substantially similar" rationale enunciated in Dodson

because the Dodson test applies only where "all of a claimant's 

duties and skills in one job are utilized in the other job, which 
- 4 - 

has a wider scope of employment . . . ." Id. at 445, 457 S.E.2d 

at 785 (emphasis added). We disagree. 

 Contrary to the employer's assertion, Dodson does not 

represent a new or different approach to determining whether two 

jobs are substantially similar. Instead, Dodson merely holds 

that, if the two jobs are of the same general class or nature, 

the wages may be combined even though all the duties of each job 

are not identical. Id. at 444, 457 S.E.2d at 785. 

 This approach does not differ from the rationale which the 

commission applied prior to the Dodson decision. The commission 

has previously stated: 

 we do feel that the Commission in applying 

[the dissimilar employment rule] must 

recognize that there are no two jobs which 

are exactly alike, and while there may be 

some additional duties which are not so 

similar, this should not result in refusing 

to allow a combination of the wages from both 

employments as the entire spectrum of the 

duties should be considered. 

Hall v. American Janitor Serv., 61 O.I.C. 172 (1982). Dodson

does not depart from that approach. Furthermore, the holding in 

Dodson is not limited merely to those situations where all of an 

employee's duties and skills are utilized in another job having a 

wider scope of employment. In every situation where the 

commission is asked to determine whether two or more jobs are 

substantially similar, the commission must consider not only the 

particular duties of each job, but also the general nature or 

type of employment of the two jobs. 
- 5 - 

 Apparently, because of language in Dodson referring to the 

"primary mission" of an employee in both jobs, the commission 

concluded that it had to determine which of an employee's duties 

is the "primary mission." As a result, the commission determined 

that the claimant's "primary mission" in his job for Creedle was 

that of a plumber/pipe fitter. However, the preponderance of the 

evidence indicates that his primary responsibility in his job 

with Creedle was as a mechanic, even though he also had 

substantial responsibility as a plumber/pipe fitter. 

 The commission apparently construed the language in Dodson

referring to "primary mission" to mean that the fact finder must 

determine or isolate the employee's single most important job 

responsibility. However, the language in Dodson referring to 

"primary mission" is much broader. The language was intended to 

focus upon the scope or general nature of a person's employment 

and to recognize that an employee's "primary mission" may involve 

several responsibilities. For example, here the claimant's 

"primary mission" in both jobs entailed significant duties as a 

mechanic and as a plumber/pipe fitter. 

 The claimant's part-time job with Creedle was substantially 

similar to his full-time job with Powell. His plumbing 

activities at Creedle, although secondary to his job as "prep 

mechanic," were more than isolated or incidental job 

responsibilities. He did plumbing work for "a week or two" out 

of the eight and one-half weeks he worked for Creedle as a 
- 6 - 

mechanic. Similarly, his responsibilities as a mechanic at 

Powell involved more than a single or isolated auto repair. The 

claimant testified that he was hired by Powell as a plumber/pipe 

fitter because he had mechanical skills in addition to plumbing 

skills. Moreover, a significant part of his job entailed 

performing maintenance on Powell's trucks whenever the plumbing 

work was slow. 

 Although the primary duty on one was secondary duty on the 

other, that fact does not mean that the employee had a different 

"primary mission" in the two employments. The claimant's skills 

as a plumber and as a mechanic were utilized substantially in 

both jobs. The fact that he may have done more plumbing work in 

one job than in the other makes no difference. Overall, the 

claimant did significant amounts of plumbing and mechanical work 

in both jobs; therefore, both jobs were substantially similar. 

 Thus, the commission correctly combined both salaries in 

calculating his average weekly wage. Accordingly, we affirm the 

award of the commission. 

Affirmed.