Opinion ID: 1677363
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: wage calculations

Text: The record in this case reflects conflicting evidence relating to McGowan's average weekly wage for the relevant period. The Workers' Compensation Court panel majority found it to be $302.24. That finding was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Apparently based upon McGowan's testimony and evidence adduced by him, the dissenting workers' compensation judge would have set McGowan's average weekly wage at $340.20. In part, McGowan argues that the average weekly wage calculation was erroneous because it was based on his wages prior to April 4, rather than prior to August 21. Between April 4 and August 21, McGowan received an increase in his hourly wage. In the single compensation judge's order, it was found that McGowan suffered an accident on April 4, 1990[,] after which he had arthroscopic surgery and suffered but a recurrence of the same injury on August 21, 1990. The panel majority on rehearing similarly found that McGowan suffered but one accident. This finding of one accident with a recurrence of the injury was not assigned as error in McGowan's petition for further review in this court, and it, therefore, will not be reviewed by this court. To be considered by an appellate court, an error must be assigned and discussed in the brief of the one claiming that prejudicial error has occurred. Lange Indus. v. Hallam Grain Co., 244 Neb. 465, 507 N.W.2d 465 (1993). Given that the compensation court panel majority found that McGowan suffered one compensable accident on April 4, with a recurrence of the same injury on August 21, it was not clearly wrong for the panel majority to compute McGowan's wages using his earnings as of April 4. All calculations to be made under the provisions of Neb.Rev.Stat. § 48-121 (Reissue 1988), and amendments thereto, have reference to wages, percentages, and results as of the time of injury. Osteen v. A.C. and S., Inc., 209 Neb. 282, 307 N.W.2d 514 (1981). Neb.Rev.Stat. § 48-126 (Reissue 1988) defines the term wages as used in the Workers' Compensation Act to mean the money rate at which the service rendered is recompensed under the contract of hiring in force at the time of the accident.  (Emphasis supplied.) Although we have been unable to find where this court has addressed the precise issue involved here, we have found that this court has considered other issues related to the recurrence of an injury. In one such case, where the worker suffered a recurrence of a compensable injury after his employer had changed insurance carriers, this court stated that if a worker's second injury is but a recurrence of the original injury, compensation therefor must be paid by the employer and insurance carrier at the time of the first injury.  (Emphasis supplied.) Mendoza v. Omaha Meat Processors, 225 Neb. 771, 780, 408 N.W.2d 280, 286 (1987). To support his contention that the Workers' Compensation Court panel majority erred in its calculation of his average weekly wage, McGowan basically relies upon his own testimony and evidence that he adduced as to the number of hours he worked. In his petition for further review, McGowan states that [t]he defendants offered no contrary evidence. That statement overlooks the receipt into evidence of McGowan's employee ledger sheet. Kept by Lockwood as part of its records, the ledger sheet reflects the number of hours McGowan worked, his rate of pay, and amounts he was paid for his work. This evidence produced by Lockwood was in conflict with McGowan's testimony and evidence. Thus, there was a conflict in the evidence as to the underlying facts to be used in determining McGowan's average weekly wage. The evidence adduced from the records of McGowan's employer support the workers' compensation panel majority's determination of McGowan's average weekly wage. The evidence supporting a finding of fact must be considered in the light most favorable to the successful party. See Yager v. Bellco Midwest, 236 Neb. 888, 464 N.W.2d 335 (1991). In regard to McGowan's average weekly wage, it is obvious that the majority of the workers' compensation panel accepted Lockwood's evidence rather than the evidence produced by McGowan. Under our standard of review, it cannot be said that the panel majority's finding as to McGowan's average weekly wage was clearly wrong. McGowan's assignment of error in regard to his average weekly wage is without merit.