Court Opinion

ID: 9619654
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:30:55.583035+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:45:28.357475
License: Public Domain

COMPTON, Justice,
dissenting.
As noted by the court, it is the “rule that ambiguous workers’ compensation statutes should be construed in favor of the employee.” State v. Dupree, 664 P.2d 562, 566 (Alaska 1983). I do not disagree with this rule of construction. Despite the court’s assertion that the rule is not being employed in this case, 681 P.2d at 907 (Alaska 1984), I believe that the contrary is true. Since I also believe the statutory language to be unambiguous on the point in issue, I dissent.
The court quotes Professor Larson’s admonition that we not suppose that “compensation theory” is satisfied by use of a mechanical representation of a claimant’s own earnings in some arbitrary past period as a wage basis.1 It is this same quote that provides the launching pad for the dissent in Dupree} I suggest that while this admonition is of interest to courts, it would be better addressed to legislatures which mandate the use of mechanical for-mulae in determining wage basis. In this case we are not applying compensation theory; we are applying an existing statute to particular facts.
The Alaska legislature has made a conscious decision to use the past to determine present and future benefits. The average weekly wage to be used in computing temporary total disability benefits is not the claimant’s actual weekly wage at the time of injury. Rather, it is an artificial figure arrived at by the use of a mechanical formula applied to figures derived from reference to an arbitrary past period,3 a procedure apparently only conditionally acceptable to Professor Larson.
The court seeks refuge from the perceived ravages of applying a mechanical formula in exceptions contained in AS 23.-*90930.220(3).4 It invents the following dichotomy:
If there is only a slight variance between wages at the time of injury and the average weekly wage arrived at under the formula of subsection (2) it would not be unfair to utilize the formula prescribed by subsection (2). In the present case, however, the apparent disparity between Johnson’s military salary and what he actually earned at the time of his disability is so substantial that application of the subsection (2) formula clearly does not fairly reflect his wage-earning capacity. The Board should, therefore, have calculated Johnson’s average weekly wage under subsection (3). (Emphasis added).
681 P.2d at 907 (Alaska 1984). I say “invent” because I can find nothing in the statute remotely suggesting the slight vari-anee/substantial disparity test now to be applied in determining whether subsection (3) is to be utilized. Furthermore, there would have been no reason for the Alaska legislature to adopt a formula based on an arbitrary past period if it intended that reference to such period be utilized when the resulting artificial figure varies only slightly from actual wages at the time of injury.
The court strays, it seems to me, when it fails to keep separate the distinction between total and partial disability benefits.5 Indeed, the court’s confusion is readily apparent from its reference to Johnson’s “wage-earning capacity,”.6 a term of art *910that is not synonymous with average weekly wages. Wage earning capacity is irrelevant to determination of average weekly wages and temporary total disability benefits.7 Simply, the court is using average weekly wages and wage earning capacity interchangeably, even though they are separately defined.
Application of a mechanical formula has more than administrative convenience to recommend it. The point in time when the claimant is most likely to need an expeditious determination of benefits is during the period of temporary total disability. Presumably the claimant is then without income. The court now injects a slight variance/substantial disparity test into the equation, along with notions of fairness in general. I submit this will cause delay and in fact be counterproductive of expeditious determination of temporary total disability benefits.
If the exceptions had stated, as they easily could have, that the average weekly wage could be disregarded if it was not fairly and reasonably representative of actual wages, I would agree with the court. However, they did not. Johnson’s wage can be “fairly calculated.” He has shown no “undue hardship.” I would affirm.

. 2 A. Larson, The Law of Workmen’s Compensation § 60.11(d), at 10-564 (1983).

. I think the conclusion inescapable that Dupree is being overruled by the court, despite its protestation to the contrary.

.AS 23.30.220(4) does provide that future normal wage increases for minors, apprentices, or trainees should be taken into account in computing the average weekly wage. It makes no such exception for military personnel entering the private sector.

. AS 23.30.220(3) provides:
[I]f the board determines that the wage at the time of injury cannot be fairly calculated under (2) of this section, or cannot otherwise be ascertained without undue hardship to the employee, the wage ... shall be the usual wage for similar service ....

. The pertinent statutes provide:
AS 23.30.180. PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY. In case of total disability adjudged to be permanent 662/3 per cent of the injured employee’s average weekly wages shall be paid to the employee during the continuance of the total disability. Loss of both hands, or both arms, or both feet, or both legs, or both eyes, or of any two of them, in the absence of conclusive proof to the contrary, constitutes permanent total disability. In all other cases permanent total disability is determined in accordance with the facts. (Emphasis added).
AS 23.30.185. COMPENSATION FOR TEMPORARY TOTAL DISABILITY. In case of disability total in character but temporary in quality, 66¾ per cent of the injured employee’s average weekly wages shall be paid to the employee during the continuance of the disability. (Emphasis added).
AS 23.30.190. COMPENSATION FOR PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY, (a) In case of disability partial in character but permanent in quality the compensation is 66¾ per cent of the injured employee’s average weekly wages in addition to compensation for temporary total disability or temporary partial disability paid in accordance with AS 23.30.185 or 23.30.200, respectively, and shall be paid to the employee as follows:
[[Image here]]
(20) in all other cases in this class of disability the compensation is 662A percent of the difference between his average weekly wages and his wage-earning capacity after the injury in the same employment or otherwise, payable during the continuance of the partial disability, but subject to reconsideration of the degree of the impairment by the board on its own motion or upon application of a party in interest; whenever the board determines that it is in the interest of justice, the liability of the employer for compensation, or any part of it as determined by the board, may be discharged by the payment of a lump sum; (Emphasis added).
AS 23.30.200. TEMPORARY PARTIAL DISABILITY. In case of temporary partial disability resulting in decrease of earning capacity the compensation shall be 66⅜ per cent of the difference between the injured employee’s average weekly wages before the injury and his wage earning capacity after the injury in the same or another employment, to be paid during the continuance of the disability, but not to be paid for more than five years. (Emphasis added).

.The pertinent statute provides:
AS 23.30.210. DETERMINATION OF WAGE-EARNING CAPACITY. In a case of partial disability under AS 23.30.190(20) or 23.30.200 the wage-earning capacity of an injured employee is determined by his actual earnings if the actual earnings fairly and reasonably represent his wage-earning capacity. If the employee has no actual earnings or his actual earnings do not fairly and reasonably represent his wage-earning capacity, the board may, in the interest of justice, fix the wage-earning capacity which is reasonable, having due regard to the nature of his injury, the degree of physical impairment, his usual employment, and any other factors or circumstances in the case which may affect his ca*910pacity to earn wages in his disabled condition, including the effect of disability as it may naturally extend into the future.

. Indeed, Professor Larson even acknowledges that it may be proper to treat temporary disability benefits as an exception to a rule regarding projection of future earnings loss for permanent disability extending into the indefinite future. 2 A. Larson, The Law of Workmen's Compensation § 60.22(b) (1983).