Opinion ID: 1120870
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: did the board err when it excluded lajiness' two week period of incarceration from its estimate of his future earnings in order to calculate his likely earnings during the period of disability?

Text: As noted above, Lajiness injured his knee on April 5, 1988, and was thereafter released by his physician to return to work on October 1, 1988. In its Decision and Order, the Board observed that On April 10, 1988 the Alaska State Troopers arrested and charged ... [Lajiness] with driving while intoxicated and driving with a suspended license. This triggered the revocation of an earlier probation, and the employee was incarcerated in the KILA halfway house in Fairbanks from April 30, 1988 through May 9, 1988. Conviction on the April 10, 1988 charges resulted in his incarceration from December 15, 1988 through December 23, 1988. After determining that Lajiness could have worked for eight weeks for Houston Contracting, earning approximately $8,440.00, the Board further found that Lajiness' two weeks incarceration would have prevented him from working at least two weeks on the North Slope, leaving earnings of $6,330.00. In this appeal, Lajiness contends that the Board erred in excluding the two weeks in its wage rate determination because [t]here is no indication in the record that Lajiness would have served his brief term of incarceration in the spring of 1988 but for the fact that he was disabled and not capable of working... . ... . The records from the criminal court furnished by Price make it clear Lajiness would have been granted work release had he been capable of working. Price argues that the Board necessarily had to consider the nature of Lajiness' work and work history, and that it was not unreasonable for the Board to assume that Lajiness could get into the same trouble whether or not he was injured. In short, Price contends that in determining a compensation rate adjustment, the Board may take into consideration events which did occur and which would have impaired Lajiness' ability to earn wages if he was not disabled. [3] Our review of the record persuades us that the Board erred when it excluded the two weeks that Lajiness was incarcerated from its estimate of Lajiness' earnings during the period of his disability. The Board's underlying rationale for its exclusion is its belief that it was reasonable to assume that Lajiness would be incarcerated for two weeks in 1988. In our view, the Board's prediction of future criminal behavior on Lajiness' part is unreasonable since it is predicated on too speculative a basis. Whether Lajiness would have violated any laws during 1988, and whether, as a result of any violation, he would have been incarcerated for any period of time during 1988, are both uncertain possibilities which cannot furnish a basis for the Board's exclusion of the two weeks worth of wages in the case at bar. AFFIRMED in part, and REMANDED in part to the superior court with instructions to remand to the Board to recalculate Lajiness' wage rate determination after including the two weeks which were erroneously excluded.