Opinion ID: 1843101
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: did the commission and the pearl river county circuit court err in permitting roadway to take credit for periods of time when lanterman was receiving vacation pay and escape payment of weekly compensation benefits?

Text: The administrative judge awarded Lanterman compensation benefits for the time he was temporarily totally disabled from April 7, 1978, through October 2, 1978, and from July 28, 1983, through September 1, 1983. But, the administrative judge then gave Roadway credit for the time Lanterman was receiving accumulated vacation pay. This was error. The rule is that credit is allowed where the payment of wages is intended to be in lieu of compensation. City of Kosciusko v. Graham, 419 So.2d 1005, 1009 (Miss. 1982). We have recognized two exceptions to this rule  where payment by the employer was a donation, see Koestler's Bakery, Inc. v. Boland, 299 So.2d 205 (Miss. 1974), and where the salary paid was not in lieu of compensation but money the claimant was entitled to receive based on his past service. Graham, 419 So.2d at 1009 [citing Staple Cotton Serv. Ass'n v. Russell, 399 So.2d 224 (Miss. 1981), and Pet, Inc., Dairy Division v. Roberson, 329 So.2d 516 (Miss. 1976)]. A similar issue was addressed by this Court in Pet, Inc., Dairy Division v. Roberson, 329 So.2d 516 (Miss. 1976). In Pet, an attorney-referee ordered that: Full credit shall be given the employer and carrier for the period of disability after injury, when the claimant was paid his salary as sick pay but shall not include credit for salary paid the claimant for his vacation period of approximately four weeks. Pet, 329 So.2d at 517. The company policy guaranteed an employee his regular salary for ninety working days out of each year for any injury or sickness the employee suffered. Id. We held that [t]he sick pay that claimant received was not salary in lieu of compensation but was money that claimant was entitled to receive based upon his past service with the company rather than because of the injury he sustained. In this respect the sick pay was no different from the vacation pay claimant received: it was a benefit accumulated on the basis of past service and for which Pet was entitled to no credit. Id.; see also, Buse v. Mississippi Employment Sec. Commission, 377 So.2d 600, 602 (Miss. 1979). In Pet we noted that our holding was in accord with the principle laid down in 2A. Larson, The Law of Workmen's Compensation § 57.46 at 10-102 (1976): A second type of payment for which credit is usually disallowed is any kind of sick pay or vacation pay of which it can be said that the claimant's entitlement to the payment is based on past service rather than on the injury as such. Pet, 329 So.2d at 517. While we follow the rule that a claimant is not entitled to compensation when he receives his regular salary in lieu of compensation, sick pay, vacation pay, donations or gratuities are not salary in lieu of compensation. Id., citing Koestler's Bakery, Inc. v. Boland, 299 So.2d 205, 206 (Miss. 1974). There is no difference between earned sick pay and earned vacation pay; both are earned and neither are compensation in lieu of wages. Lanterman was totally disabled at the time he took his vacation leave and therefore, the Commission should not have affirmed the Order of the Administrative Judge. The Commission should have awarded benefits to Lanterman during the time he was on vacation and receiving vacation pay. Both the Commission and the Circuit Court were in error and we reverse on this issue.