Opinion ID: 1154257
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Computation of Phillips' benefits

Text: An injured worker's compensation rate is based on his average weekly wage. AS 23.30.220, as it read in 1976, spelled out three alternative means of determining a worker's average weekly wage: Determination of average weekly wage. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the average weekly wage of the injured employee at the time of the injury is the basis for computing compensation, and is determined as follows: (1) if at the time of the injury the employee has been employed in the same or similar employment for 27 weeks immediately before the injury, the average weekly wage is the weekly wage at the time of the injury; (2) if at the time of the injury the employee has been employed in the same or similar employment for less than 27 weeks immediately before the injury, the average weekly wage is that most favorable to the employee calculated by dividing 52 into the total wages earned, including self-employment, in any one of the three calendar years immediately preceding the injury; (3) if the board determines that the wage at the time of the injury cannot be fairly calculated under (2) of this section, or cannot otherwise be ascertained without undue hardship to the employee, the wage for calculating compensation shall be the usual wage for similar services rendered by paid employees under similar circumstances, as determined by the board; [3] ... Houston computed Phillips' compensation rate under AS 23.30.220(2), using Phillips' 1975 earnings as the base year. Houston determined that Phillips' compensation rate was $372.98 (his 1975 average weekly wage multiplied by 66-2/3%, as then required by AS 23.30.185 for temporary total disabilities). [4] Because Phillips had not worked continuously for the 27 weeks prior to his injury, Houston assumed that AS 23.30.220(1) did not apply. Eight years later, on July 25, 1984, Phillips applied to the Board for an adjustment in his compensation rate. Phillips argued that his compensation rate should have been computed under AS 23.30.220(1) or (3) and based on his weekly wages at the time of his injury. Following a hearing, the Board denied and dismissed Phillips' claim on the grounds that the original computation was reasonable and Phillips' claim was barred by the doctrine of laches. The superior court affirmed on the merits only. [5] This appeal followed.