COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Coleman, Willis and Bumgardner 

Argued at Richmond, Virginia 

DINWIDDIE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD 

 OPINION BY 

v. Record No. 0081-98-2 JUDGE RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER, III 

 NOVEMBER 3, 1998 

DELORICE M. COLE 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 Daniel E. Lynch (S. Vernon Priddy, III; 

Sands, Anderson, Marks & Miller, on brief), 

for appellant. 

 Eileen McNeil Newkirk (Taylor, Hazen, 

Kauffman & Pinchbeck, PLC, on brief), for 

appellee. 

 Dinwiddie County School Board appeals a decision of the 

Workers' Compensation Commission awarding lost wages to Delorice 

M. Cole. The commission calculated average weekly wages by 

combining the earnings Cole received from each of the two jobs 

she held with the School Board. For the following reasons, we 

affirm the commission's decision. 

 Neither party disputes the facts. Cole held one job as a 

bus driver and a second job as a teacher's aide. She had 

separate contracts for each job, and different departments of the 

School Board paid her from separate budgets. She injured her 

shoulder while working as a teacher's aide, but the injury 

prevented her from driving her school bus. Cole filed a workers' 

compensation claim for medical treatment and lost wages. The 

deputy commissioner awarded no lost wages but did award 
- 2 - 

reasonable and necessary medical treatment. The deputy 

commissioner ruled that the doctrine of substantially similar 

employment applied. However, he found that Cole's two positions 

were dissimilar and did not combine the wages from the two jobs. 

 Cole appealed to the commission, and it reversed the denial of 

lost wages. The commission agreed that the jobs were dissimilar 

but calculated Cole's average weekly wage by combining income 

from both positions. The commission awarded her temporary 

partial disability benefits for lost earnings. 

 On appeal, the School Board argues that the commission erred 

by combining earnings from the two jobs. The School Board 

contends the commission could combine the weekly wages only if 

the jobs were similar because the substantial similarity doctrine 

controls. Cole counters that the commission properly combined 

the wages because the doctrine is inapplicable when the claimant 

works for a single employer. 

 The commission sought to determine the purpose for combining 

wages under the substantial similarity doctrine when the jobs are 

similar but not combining them when the jobs are dissimilar. See

Creedle Sales Co., Inc. v. Edmonds, 24 Va. App. 24, 27, 480 

S.E.2d 123, 124 (1997). The commission noted that workers' 

compensation is designed to place the economic burden of 

work-related injuries on industry and, more specifically, on the 

employer. See 5 Larson, Workers' Compensation Laws § 60.31(f) 

(1997). The rationale for the approach is to prevent the costs 
- 3 - 

of injury being out of proportion to the industry's payroll or 

risks. If an employee works for only one employer, the burden is 

not out of proportion to the employer's payroll or the industry's 

risks. The single employer is not being forced to assume 

responsibility for the wages paid by some other employer or the 

risks of some other industry. Combining a claimant's wages paid 

by a single employer for two jobs performed is fair to the single 

employer because that employer had already assumed the liability 

risk. The commission concluded, "[t]hus, the question of whether 

the employment is similar or dissimilar should not be relevant 

where the employer is the same, and only the jobs are different." 

Cf. Marianna School Dist. v. Vanderburg, 700 S.W.2d 381 (1985) 

(injured claimant who worked as bus driver and as food service 

worker for two employers did not have wages combined because 

doing so would impose liability not necessarily assumed by the 

employers). 

 We construe the Workers' Compensation Act liberally for the 

benefit of employees and give great weight to the commission's 

construction of the Act. See City of Waynesboro v. Harter, 1 Va. 

App. 265, 269, 337 S.E.2d 901, 903 (1985). The substantially 

similar doctrine prevents combining salaries from two separate 

jobs if the jobs are not similar. The rationale for applying the 

doctrine is not present when the two jobs are performed for the 

same employer. The decision of the commission is in keeping with 

the purpose of the Act. We give it deference because we cannot 
- 4 - 

say it is wrong as a matter of law. 

 Finding no reason to disturb the commission's decision 

awarding Cole lost wages based on the combined average weekly 

wage of both positions, we affirm the commission's findings. 

 Affirmed.