Court Opinion

ID: 9868511
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 18:38:51.797068+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:51.150247
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION TO REHEAR.
By a petition filed in this case we have been requested to state more clearly and specifically the method of computing compensation under the statute, which we shall attempt to do. The decisions of the court upon this question would likely have been better understood had the opinions contained fuller statements of the facts. The statute is indefinite and does not purport to cover every situation that may arise.
The underlying principle of our compensation law is thus stated in White v. The Pinkerton Co., 155 Tenn., 233, to-wit:
“After a careful consideration of the statute we have concluded that the object of the act was to compensate a disabled employee, to the extent of fifty per cent of the wages he had been receiving, for a given number of weeks.
“Where the 'court can see that the application of this rule would be unfair, and evidence has been introduced that would justify us in applying some other rule, we would not hesitate to do so.
“(3) The court must ascertain the average weekly wages of the petitioner by past earnings, and not by what he may earn in the future.”
In the opinion in that case, after' quoting subsection (c) of section 2, the court said:
*688“The foregoing subsection provides three methods for ascertaining average weekly wages:
“1. "Where the employee has been working for the 'employer for as much as a year, prior to the injury, divide the total wages received by fifty-two.
“2. Where the employment, prior to the injury, was less than fifty-two weeks, divide the total wages received by number of weeks employed; ‘Provided, results just and fair to both parties will thereby be obtained.’
“3. Where the employment has been of such short duration that it is impracticable to compute the wages by either of the above methods, then regard shall be had to the average wages received by a person in the ‘same grade,’ employed at the same work by the same employer, ‘and if there is no such person so employed, by a person in the same grade employed in the same class of employment in the same district. ’
“The first method has no application in this case because the petitioner was only in the employ of the defendant ten weeks.
“The third rule is not a proper measure because there is no evidence as to the wages received by a person in the ‘same grade.’ ”
The court applied rule two in that case, which it conceived to be just and fair to both parties; that is, it divided the total wages received ($28.60) by the number of weeks covering the employment (10), and held the average weekly wages to be $2.85. That was the only matter of contest in the case. The facts were that White received an injury to his right wrist, resulting in eight weeks total disability, and permanent partial disability to his right hand to the extent of twenty-four per cent. For the total disability he was entitled to receive fifty *689per cent of his average weekly wages, and for liis permanent partial disability he was entitled to receive twenty-four per'cent of'his average weekly wages for one hundred fifty weeks, less the period (S weeks) covering total ' disability. It was agreed that he was entitled to $10.0 for medical expenses. The recovery awarded petitioner was as follows:
8 weeks at $2.85 $ 22.80
142 weeks at 24% of $2.85 97.13
Medical expenses 100.00
Total $219.93
In Mayberry v. Chemical Co., 160 Tenn., 459, we ap-, plied the same rule. In that case the employment covered eighteen weeks and the total wages received were $81.25, thus making the average weekly wages $4.51. We excluded the weeks in which no work was performed.
In each of the foregoing cases the employment was for less than a year, and we endeavored to compensate the employees to the extent of fifty per cent of the wages they had been receiving. We are unable to formulate a. rule whereby compensation, in this class of cases, can be computed with mathematical certainty. Id the two above cases the employment was unusual, periodical, and not continuous; and it is only in these exceptional cases that the computation of wages becomes complicated. But when the principles announced herein are applied to the cases as they arise, they can be disposed of without difficulty.
In the instant case the employment covered a period of several years, but the employe did not work regularly and continuously. The court held that the first rule announced in White v. The Pinkerton Company did not *690apply, because that provision had in contemplation one regularly employed for a normal week, and that the statute did not specifically cover a case like the one under consideration. The court found that the average weekly wages received by the employe for the fifty-two weeks preceding the accident were $12.50 instead of $22.50!, as found by the trial court. That was the only matter in controversy. The court, in principle, applied the second rule, viz., fifty per cent of the wages the employe had been receiving for a given number of1 weeks. That finding was based upon the testimony of Mr. Bragg, to the effect that the average weekly wages of petitioner for the preceding year were $12 or $13. We adopted the average of these two sums. It is only when the employment has been regular and continuous for a year or longer that the first rule, referred to -above, is to be applied. That is not this case.