Opinion ID: 3150549
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Application of Proper Standard

Text: In denying McKellar’s award of temporary total disability benefits, both the Commission and the Court of Appeals failed to apply the plain language of Code § 65.2-500. Instead of applying the test for total incapacity as delineated by Code § 65.2-500, the court and Commission below improperly conflated the analyses for total incapacity and partial incapacity. The Court of Appeals cited extensively to cases decided under Code § 65.2-502, the partial incapacity statute, holding that it “provides for payments in much the same fashion as the statutory provision for total incapacity, Code § 65.2-500.” 63 Va. App. at 455 n.3, 758 S.E.2d at 107 n.3. This conclusion is plainly erroneous. Although both Code §§ 65.2-500 and -502 provide payments for injured workers, the corresponding tests differ significantly. As explained above, Code § 65.2-500 governs total incapacity and applies a loss of earning capacity test, while Code § 65.2-502 pertains to partial incapacity and applies an economic loss test. The Court of Appeals relied heavily on Arlington County Fire Department v. Stebbins, 21 Va. App. 570, 466 S.E.2d 124 (1996), but the facts of that case differ substantially from McKellar’s case. Stebbins concerned Code § 65.2-101(1)(a) and the calculation of an 7 employee’s average weekly wage. 21 Va. App. at 573, 466 S.E.2d at 126. Stebbins was denied benefits not because of his status as a retired fireman, but rather because he reported no earnings for the previous fifty-two weeks. Id. The Commission was therefore unable to calculate the claimant’s pre-injury earning capacity. Id. In McKellar’s case, less than one month had elapsed between the time of his injury and the filing of his claim, and McKellar proved his pre-injury weekly wage of $963.60. Furthermore, the Stebbins decision reiterated that “[t]he purpose of the Workers’ Compensation Act is to compensate employees when they lose an opportunity to engage in work after suffering work-related injuries.” 21 Va. App. at 572, 466 S.E.2d at 125-26 (citing Potomac Edison Co. v. Cash, 18 Va. App. 629, 631, 446 S.E.2d 155, 156 (1994)) (emphasis added). The Court of Appeals also relied on Utility Trailer Manufacturing Co. v. Testerman, 58 Va. App. 474, 711 S.E.2d 232 (2011), but that case does not apply because it had a narrow focus and involved a worker with only a partial incapacity who sought benefits under Code § 65.2-502. “[O]ur decision is limited in scope; it addresses only those cases where a partially incapacitated employee is furloughed.” 58 Va. App. at 483, 711 S.E.2d at 236 (emphasis in the original). Likewise, the Court of Appeals in this appeal quoted another case decided under Code § 65.2-502, Lam v. Kawneer Co., 38 Va. App. 515, 566 S.E.2d 874 (2002), to warn that an award of benefits to McKellar would “unjustly enrich the worker and result in manifest injustice.” McKellar, 63 Va. App. at 456, 758 S.E.2d at 108. However, Lam is wholly inapposite because it concerned a partially disabled employee whose benefits terminated when he obtained a new job with wages higher than his pre-injury wages. 38 Va. App. at 518, 566 S.E.2d at 875. McKellar’s claim for temporary total disability benefits under Code § 65.2-500 cannot be decided in the same manner as a Code § 65.2-502 case. A partially disabled retiree could seek 8 other employment. A totally incapacitated retiree cannot work. A partially disabled retiree can supplement his retirement income. McKellar cannot. The Court of Appeals wrongly concluded that an award of temporary total disability benefits to McKellar would constitute a “windfall” that another “similarly situated retired worker would not receive.” 63 Va. App. at 456, 758 S.E.2d at 108. This conclusion ignores the uncontested fact that at the time of the hearing McKellar was totally disabled and incapable of earning a salary. McKellar is not similarly situated to retirees who are not totally disabled and who have the option of re-entering the workforce at some time. Accordingly, we hold that the Commission and the Court of Appeals erred in denying temporary total disability benefits to McKellar.