Drywall Products v. Constuble
| Decision Date | 29 August 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 90CA1444,90CA1444 |
| Citation | 832 P.2d 957 |
| Parties | DRYWALL PRODUCTS and Nationwide Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. Gregory CONSTUBLE and The Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the State of Colorado, Respondents. . I |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Retherford, Mullen, Rector & Johnson, Michael R. Waters, Colorado Springs, for petitioners.
Steven U. Mullens, P.C., Steven U. Mullens and Pamela J. Adams, Pueblo, for respondent Gregory Constuble.
Gale A. Norton, Atty. Gen., Raymond T. Slaughter, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Timothy M. Tymkovich, Sol. Gen., and Paul H. Chan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for respondent Indus. Claim Appeals Office.
Paul Tochtrop, Denver, for amicus curiae Colorado Defense Lawyers Ass'n and Colorado Compensation Ins. Authority.
Opinion by Judge SILVERSTEIN *.
Petitioners, Drywall Products (employer) and Nationwide Insurance Company, seek review of a final order of the Industrial Claim Appeals Panel determining that Gregory Constuble (claimant) was entitled to permanent total disability benefits based on an average weekly wage of $448.53. We affirm.
Claimant, who was employed as a driver and stocker, sustained an admitted industrial injury to his back in September 1987. At the time of the injury, claimant had worked for employer for less than two months and was initially paid $4.00 per hour. During the last week or so before the injury, however, he was paid on a piecework basis.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined claimant's anticipated average weekly wage using the piecework rate applied to his contract for ten to twelve hours per day and five days per week. Accordingly, claimant was awarded benefits based on an average weekly wage of $448.53.
Claimant was unable to return to his regular duties, and employer did not offer to provide claimant with a modified position or vocational rehabilitation. Since claimant's physicians and vocational counselor recommended vocational rehabilitation, the ALJ determined that petitioners' failure to provide these services effectively rendered claimant permanently and totally disabled. The Panel affirmed both the award of permanent total disability benefits and the calculation of the average weekly wage.
Petitioners contend that the Panel improperly calculated claimant's average weekly wage based upon anticipated earnings rather than past earnings. We disagree.
A claimant's average weekly wage is to be determined according to the contract of hire in force at the time of the injury. See § 8-47-101(2), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 3B) (now codified at § 8-40-201(19), C.R.S. (1990 Cum.Supp.)); Lenco Leasing Co. v. O'Dell, 704 P.2d 329 (Colo.App.1985).
When an employee is paid on a piecework basis, the average wage is generally determined by computing the average amount earned per pay period over the year preceding the injury. Section 8-47-101(3)(e), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 3B) (now codified at § 8-42-102(2)(e), C.R.S. (1990 Cum.Supp.)). However, when this method will not render a fair computation of wages, the ALJ is empowered to use some other method to determine a fair average weekly wage. Section 8-47-101(4), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 3B) (now codified at § 8-42-102(3), C.R.S. (1990 Cum.Supp.)); Dugan v. Industrial Commission, 690 P.2d 267 (Colo.App.1984).
Here, the ALJ relied upon evidence that claimant's contract contemplated ten to twelve hours per day for five days per week on a piecework basis. Since claimant had worked on a piecework basis for such a short period of time, the ALJ was justified in using an alternate method to compute claimant's average weekly wage rather than the piecework method set forth in § 8-42-102(2)(e), C.R.S. (1990 Cum.Supp.). This determination is supported by substantial evidence, and therefore, the order cannot be disturbed on review. Section 8-43-308, C.R.S. (1990 Cum.Supp.).
Petitioners argue that the ALJ applied the converse of the statute then in effect, now codified at § 8-42-111(3), C.R.S. (1990 Cum.Supp.), and that therefore the award of benefits for permanent total disability was improper. We disagree.
Here, the ALJ determined that claimant was unable to perform any work that he was capable of performing before his injury. The medical providers recommended vocational rehabilitation for claimant, which employer refused to provide. Therefore, the record fully supports the conclusion that claimant was permanently totally disabled.
Section 8-42-111(3), the statute on which petitioners rely, provides that:
"A totally disabled employee capable of rehabilitation to suitable gainful employment who refuses ......
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Avalanche Industries, Inc. v. Clark
...v. Grimm, 88 Colo. 416, 297 P. 1003 (1931) (including in total time worked eleven weeks of "forced" vacation); Drywall Products v. Constuble, 832 P.2d 957 (Colo.App. 1991) (retroactively applying rate employee had begun to earn shortly before injury to avoid unfair underpayment of benefits)......
-
Coates, Reid & Waldron v. Vigil
...employ an alternative method of computing compensation benefits based upon the employee's average weekly wage. See Drywall Products v. Constuble, 832 P.2d 957 (Colo.App.1991) cert. denied, (No. 91SC708) (April 13, 1992); R.J.S. Painting v. Industrial Comm'n, 732 P.2d 239 (Colo.App.1986); We......
-
Avalanche Industries v. Icao
...and three opinions from divisions of this court: Williams Bros. v. Grimm, 88 Colo. 416, 297 P. 1003 (1931); Drywall Products v. Constuble, 832 P.2d 957 (Colo.App. 1991); R.J.S. Painting v. Industrial Commission, 732 P.2d 239 (Colo.App.1986); and Western Sizzlin Steak House v. Axton, 701 P.2......
-
Professional Fire Protection, Inc. v. Long
...whether the claimant could regain efficiency to a substantial degree in the fields of general employment. See Drywall Products v. Constuble, 832 P.2d 957 (Colo.App.1991). The absence of vocational rehabilitation further is relevant to the injured worker's "general physical condition and men......
-
Fifteen Years of Colorado Legislative Tort Reform: Where Are We Now?
...97. CRS § 8-42-104(1). 98. CRS § 8-42-105(3). 99. CRS § 8-40-201(11.5). 100. CRS § 8-42-111(3). 101. See Drywall Products v. Constuble, 832 P.2d 957 (Colo.App. 102. CRS § 8-42-111(3). 103. CRS § 8-43-406(2). 104. CRS § 8-41-301(2)(a). 105. CRS § 8-41-301(2)(b). 106. CRS § 8-41-301(2)(c). 10......