Farmers Home Gin v. Christopher
| Decision Date | 30 June 1995 |
| Citation | 668 So.2d 796 |
| Parties | FARMERS HOME GIN, a corporation v. Dennis R. CHRISTOPHER. 2940113. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Appeal from Colbert Circuit Court, No. CV-94-166; Inge Johnson, Judge.
Nicholas J. Steles of Ashe, Tanner, Moore & Wright, P.C., Tuscumbia, for Appellant.
John D. Clement, Jr., Tuscumbia, for Appellee.
Farmers Home Gin, a corporation ("FHG"), appeals from a judgment awarding temporary total and permanent partial workers' compensation disability benefits to Dennis R. Christopher. The trial court found that Christopher did not return to work at a wage equal to or greater than his pre-injury wage, and determined that he had suffered a 27% permanent partial vocational disability as a result of his injury. FHG contends that the trial court erred in calculating Christopher's average weekly post-injury wage and that the trial court should have followed § 25-5-57(a)(3)i, Ala.Code 1975, in this case. Section 25-5-57(a)(3)i provides that if an employee returns to work at a wage equal to or greater than his or her pre-injury wage, the permanent partial disability rating shall be equal to his or her physical impairment. In that instance, the court is not allowed to consider any evidence of vocational disability. We reverse and remand.
On January 20, 1993, while operating a forklift for FHG, Christopher broke his left arm in several places when the metal forks fell on his arm. Christopher's orthopedic surgeon determined that he suffered a 9% physical impairment of the body as a whole as a result of his injury. A vocational expert determined that Christopher suffered a 27% loss of earning capacity as a result of his injury.
Christopher returned to work on October 1, 1993, and worked until January 14, 1994, when he underwent additional surgery on his arm. He again returned to work on March 4, 1994, and was working at the time of trial. Before his injury, Christopher made $6.50 per hour. Upon his return to work after the injury, he made $7.00 per hour. He usually worked 40 hours per week, but during ginning season, he worked extensive overtime hours. Christopher returned to work in 1993 in time for the ginning season and worked the overtime required of him, but testimony reflected that he did not work the number of overtime hours he had worked in 1992 because the cotton season was not as productive in 1993.
FHG paid medical insurance premiums for all of its employees, including Christopher. In his case, however, FHG also paid the premiums for his family's medical insurance coverage, a benefit that was not extended to any other employee. The manager of FHG testified that because of medical problems experienced by Christopher's family, the company decided to pay Christopher's family premiums in an effort to assist the family through a difficult time. After other employees began to complain about the extra benefit extended to Christopher, however, FHG ceased paying his monthly family premium in May 1994.
After a hearing in this case, the trial court found that Christopher's average pre-injury weekly wage was $414.07, and that his average post-injury weekly wage was $404.02. In calculating the average weekly wages, the trial court included all of Christopher's medical insurance premiums paid by FHG, including the amount paid by FHG for Christopher's family insurance premiums, stating that the family premiums "constitute[d] a discernible economic value to plaintiff" and citing Ex parte Murray, 490 So.2d 1238 (Ala.1986). Because the trial court found that Christopher did not return to work at a wage equal to or greater than his pre-injury wage, it held that the provisions of § 25-5-57(a)(3)i, Ala.Code 1975, did not apply, and, therefore, considered the opinion of the vocational expert as well as that of the orthopedic surgeon. The trial court concluded that Christopher had suffered a 27% loss of earning capacity, and it calculated workers' compensation benefits accordingly.
FHG's argument that the medical insurance premiums paid by FHG for Christopher's family should not be included in the calculation of his average weekly wages is dispositive of this case. The trial court's conclusions regarding legal issues carry no presumption of correctness on appeal. § 25-5-81(e)(1), Ala. Code 1975; Whitsett v. BAMSI, Inc., 652 So.2d 287, 289 (Ala.Civ.App.1994). 1
Although the trial court correctly noted that the company's payment of the family premiums constituted a discernible economic value to Christopher, economic value to the employee is not the factor that governs whether an employer's payment of fringe benefits must be included in the calculation of an employee's average weekly wage. The terms "wages" and "weekly wages" are defined by the Alabama Workers' Compensation Act as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Amec Foster Wheeler Kamtech, Inc. v. Chandler
...wage, see Ala. Code 1975, § 25-5-1(6) (equating the term "wage" with "average weekly earnings"), and Farmers Home Gin v. Christopher, 668 So. 2d 796, 797-98 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995) (applying the return-to-work statute and § 25-5-1(6), Ala. Code 1975, and comparing the employee's average weekl......
-
Lowe v. City of Bayou La Batre
...provided gratuitously or were not paid "in lieu of wages ... as part of [Lowe's] wage contract." See, contra, Farmers Home Gin v. Christopher, 668 So.2d 796 (Ala.Civ.App.1995). Thus, it appears that temporary total benefits should have been computed based on the value of Lowe's average week......