Source: https://wcc.state.ct.us/crb/1997/3200crb.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 14:37:06+00:00

Document:
The claimant was represented by Paul Ranando, Esq., Dodd, Lessack, Ranando & Dalton, 700 West Johnson St., Cheshire, CT 06410.
The respondents were represented by Jeremy D. Booty, Esq., Montstream & May, 655 Winding Brook Drive, P. O. Box 1087, Glastonbury, CT 06033.
This Petition for Review from the October 25, 1995 Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Fifth District was heard September 20, 1996 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman Jesse M. Frankl and Commissioners George A. Waldron and Robin L. Wilson.
The claimant suffered a compensable injury to his left eye on September 28, 1988. That injury was accepted by voluntary agreement dated February 3, 1989. The agreement set the claimant’s average weekly wage at $401.88. The claimant sought to have that computation set aside in order to include profit sharing sums that were paid to employees of the respondent at year’s end. The trial commissioner granted that request, and this board affirmed his decision to reopen the voluntary agreement in Ericson v. Perreault Spring & Equipment Co., 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 171, 1008 CRD-5-90-4 (July 17, 1991).
On remand, the trial commissioner was presented with a stipulation of facts, and ruled that the bonus sums should not be included in the claimant’s average weekly wage because they were not actually received during the 26 weeks preceding the injury. See § 31-310 C.G.S. This board reversed the commissioner’s decision on appeal, holding that Fiore v. Office Furniture Depot, 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 15, 1093 CRD-3-90-8 (Dec. 27, 1991) and our prior decision in Ericson allowed the inclusion of an end-of-the year bonus in a claimant’s compensation rate if it was allocable to weeks worked during the preceding year. Ericson, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 243, 1418 CRB-5-92-5 (March 29, 1994), appeal dismissed for lack of final judgment, 38 Conn. App. 71 (1995). Based on the stipulated facts, we noted that the end-of-the-year profit sharing bonus of $19,000 was a substantial part of the claimant’s pay, and that it was contemplated by the employment contract. Concluding that the bonus was thus allocable to the weeks that the claimant worked during the calendar year, we remanded the case with orders that the trier add the portion of the bonus allocable to the 26 weeks preceding the injury to the salary that the claimant received during that time ($10,448.88) in order to determine his average weekly wage and compensation rate. Id., 245.
A look at the July 18, 1995 formal hearing transcript shows that the claimant testified that he understood the bonus to be part of his pay, and that if he had not received the bonus, he probably could have worked fewer hours for another employer at the same pay. Id., 5. He also testified that he received the $19,000 bonus in December 1988, based upon the weeks he worked that fiscal year. Although he did not know how the bonus was calculated, he stated that he was told by his employer that “the harder you work, the more you make.” Id., 8. The employer, John Perreault, also confirmed that the claimant’s W2 form for 1988 showed that his total compensation was $35,724 based on salary and profit sharing, and that his compensation for 1987 was $37,096, including a profit sharing amount of $17,700. Id., 17.
Despite the testimony cited by the respondents, we believe that there is enough evidence in the record to support the commissioner’s conclusion that the $19,000 bonus could be allocated over the 1988 fiscal year by assigning $365.38 per week to every week in that year. This board had already concluded in the second Ericson decision that the bonus was allocable to the weeks the claimant had worked during 1988; Id., 245; and the commissioner made a logical ruling on how to apportion that amount over the 52 weeks in the year. We also note that this board has decided in Phelan v. Soda Construction, 14 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 389, 1979 CRB-3-94-3 (Oct. 17, 1995), that a claimant who is owed wages does not actually have to receive his paychecks before the date of his injury in order for them to be included in his wage calculation under § 31-310. Id., 391. Also, we upheld a commissioner’s finding that profit sharing checks based upon the hours a claimant had worked were wages within the meaning of the Workers’ Compensation Act in Yale v. Allegheny Ludlum, 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 275, 276, 1894 CRB-8-93-11 (April 19, 1995). Consistent with all of those decisions, we uphold the commissioner’s decision in this case as well.

References: v. 
 § 31
 v. 
 v. 
 § 31
 v.