David A. Shaver v. Department of State/Commonwealth of Virginia ( 2014 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Chief Judge Felton, Judges Alston and Chafin
UNPUBLISHED
Argued at Salem, Virginia
DAVID A. SHAVER
MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
v. Record No. 1499-13-3 JUDGE TERESA M. CHAFIN
MAY 27, 2014
DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE/
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
Michael A. Kernbach for appellant.
Katherine DeCoster, Assistant Attorney General (Kenneth T.
Cuccinelli, II, Attorney General; Wesley G. Russell, Jr., Deputy
Attorney General; Peter R. Messitt, Senior Assistant Attorney
General; Scott John Fitzgerald, Senior Assistant Attorney General,
on brief), for appellee.
David A. Shaver (“Shaver”) appeals a decision of the Virginia Workers’ Compensation
Commission (“the commission”) denying him wage indemnity benefits for periods of temporary
total disability resulting from an occupational heart disease arising out of and in the course of his
employment with the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of State Police (“the employer”).
On appeal, Shaver contends that the commission erred by holding that he was required to suffer a
loss of wages in order to receive a wage indemnity benefit and that his receipt of such a benefit
when he did not suffer a loss of wages would constitute a windfall that would unjustly enrich
him. We hold that the commission did not err in denying Shaver indemnity benefits under the
circumstances of this case, and accordingly, we affirm the commission’s decision.
*
Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
I. BACKGROUND
On appeal, this Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the employer, the
prevailing party below. See R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v. Mullins, 10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390
S.E.2d 788, 788 (1990). So viewed, the evidence establishes that Shaver retired from
employment on September 1, 2010. Prior to his retirement, Shaver had served as a Headquarters
Lieutenant for Division IV of the employer. Shaver voluntarily retired based on his years of
service, and he did not work, seek employment, or have any plans to seek employment following
his retirement.
On October 14, 2010, Shaver felt discomfort in his chest while driving his godson to
school. He was subsequently diagnosed with coronary artery disease. Shaver’s physicians stated
that the occupational stress from his employment could have contributed to the development or
acceleration of this heart disease. Shaver was hospitalized due to this heart condition on the
following dates: October 14-15, 2010; November 3-7, 2010; November 17-18, 2010; May 20,
2011; November 2-3, 2011; and November 17-19, 2011. Shaver was totally incapacitated during
these periods of hospitalization.
On December 20, 2010, Shaver filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits based
on his heart disease. He requested both medical benefits and wage indemnity benefits to
compensate him for the periods of total disability he suffered while hospitalized. The employer
stipulated that Shaver’s coronary artery disease constituted a compensable occupational disease
pursuant to Code § 65.2-402(B) and that he was entitled to medical benefits arising out of this
diagnosis.1 The employer further stipulated that Shaver was totally disabled for the periods for
1
Code § 65.2-402(B) provides, in pertinent part, that heart disease resulting in the total or
partial disability of state police officers is presumed to be an occupational disease suffered in the
-2-
which he sought compensation and that he earned a pre-injury average weekly wage of
$1,172.35. The employer argued, however, that Shaver was not entitled to wage indemnity
benefits because he had not suffered an actual economic loss due to his heart condition, as he
was voluntarily retired and not receiving wages during the time of his hospitalization and total
temporary disability.
The deputy commissioner that heard Shaver’s case awarded him medical benefits based
on his heart disease, but denied him wage indemnity benefits for the periods of his
hospitalization. The deputy commissioner found that Shaver had not sustained any economic
loss attributable to his compensable occupational disease. The deputy commissioner held that
Shaver had not lost any wages while he was temporarily disabled because he was retired and not
employed or seeking employment during this period. Accordingly, the deputy commissioner
denied Shaver’s request for wage indemnity benefits.
Shaver requested a review of the deputy commissioner’s decision by the full commission.
Two commissioners affirmed the deputy commissioner’s decision, and found that Shaver had
failed to establish that his disability resulted in an actual loss of wages. These commissioners
further held that awarding Shaver wage indemnity benefits where he had no wage loss would
“unjustly enrich him and counter[] the spirit of the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Act.” One
commissioner dissented, finding that Shaver was entitled to wage indemnity benefits pursuant to
Code § 65.2-500 because he had earned income within fifty-two weeks preceding the
communication of his disease. The dissenting commissioner found that this income
demonstrated that Shaver had suffered an economic loss. The dissenting commissioner reasoned
that Shaver could have worked and earned a similar wage during the periods in question in the
line of duty and is compensable unless this presumption is rebutted by a preponderance of
competent evidence to the contrary. See Code § 65.2-402(B).
-3-
absence of his occupational disease. Shaver appealed the commission’s decision denying wage
loss compensation to this Court.
II. ANALYSIS
This case presents a mixed question of law and fact on appeal. In reviewing the
commission’s decision denying indemnity benefits to Shaver, we must review the commission’s
application of the facts of the case to statutory law. The commission’s factual findings will be
upheld on appeal if they are supported by credible evidence. James v. Capitol Steel Constr. Co.,
8 Va. App. 512, 515, 382 S.E.2d 487, 488 (1989). “Unlike questions of fact, however, we
review questions of law de novo. We construe the Workers’ Compensation Act liberally for the
benefit of employees and give great weight to the commission’s construction of the Act.”
Fairfax Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Humphrey, 41 Va. App. 147, 155, 583 S.E.2d 65, 68-69 (2003)
(citations omitted). When we review the commission’s decision under these standards, we
conclude that Shaver’s arguments are without merit. As Shaver suffered no loss of wages during
his period of total temporary disability, an award of wage indemnity benefits would unjustly
enrich him. We conclude the commission did not err in concluding that Shaver was not entitled
to wage indemnity benefits under these circumstances.
“The purpose of the Workers’ Compensation Act is to compensate employees when they
lose an opportunity to engage in work after suffering work-related injuries.” Arlington Cnty.
Fire Dep’t v. Stebbins, 21 Va. App. 570, 572, 466 S.E.2d 124, 125-26 (1996). Code § 65.2-500
provides wage indemnity benefits to injured workers during periods of temporary incapacity.
That statute states, in pertinent part:
when the incapacity for work resulting from the injury is total, the
employer shall pay, or cause to be paid, as hereinafter provided, to
the injured employee during such total incapacity, a weekly
compensation equal to 66 2/3 percent of his average weekly wages,
-4-
with a minimum not less than 25 percent and a maximum of not
more than 100 percent of the average weekly wage of the
Commonwealth as defined herein. In any event, income benefits
shall not exceed the average weekly wage of the injured employee.
Code § 65.2-500(A). Code § 65.2-101 defines “average weekly wage” as:
[t]he earnings of the injured employee in the employment in which
he was working at the time of the injury during the period of 52
weeks immediately preceding the date of the injury, divided by 52
. . . . When the employment prior to the injury extended over a
period of less than 52 weeks, the method of dividing the earnings
during that period by the number of weeks and parts thereof during
which the employee earned wages shall be followed, provided that
results fair and just to both parties will be thereby obtained.2
As demonstrated by Code §§ 65.2-101 and 65.2-500, “[c]ompensation is ultimately
dependent upon and determined on the loss of wages.” Stebbins, 21 Va. App. at 573, 466 S.E.2d
at 126. “‘The reason for calculating the average weekly wage is to approximate the economic
loss suffered by an employee or his beneficiaries when there is a loss of earning capacity because
of work-related injury or death.’” Id. (quoting Bosworth v. 7-Up Distrib. Co., 4 Va. App. 161,
163, 355 S.E.2d 339, 340 (1987)). “When a worker does not suffer a loss of wages, receipt of
compensation benefits would unjustly enrich the worker and result in manifest injustice.” Lam
v. Kawneer Co., 38 Va. App. 515, 518, 566 S.E.2d 874, 875 (2002). “The purpose of the Act ‘is
to compensate injured workers for lost wages, not to enrich them unjustly.’” Id. at 520, 566
S.E.2d at 876 (quoting Collins v. Dep’t of Alcoholic Beverage Comm., 21 Va. App. 671, 678,
467 S.E.2d 279, 282, aff’d en banc, 22 Va. App. 625, 472 S.E.2d 287 (1996)).
Both this Court and the Supreme Court have addressed factually similar cases in which
retired employees have attempted to collect wage indemnity benefits for periods of total
disability occurring after their retirement. In Stebbins, a retired firefighter sought wage
2
Although Code § 65.2-101 provides alternate methods of calculating an employee’s
average weekly wage, these methods are inapplicable in this case.
-5-
indemnity benefits for a period of temporary total disability resulting from a heart condition. At
the time his incapacity manifested itself, Stebbins was not employed or seeking employment and
he had not earned wages from any employment since his voluntary retirement approximately two
years earlier. Stebbins, 21 Va. App. at 572, 466 S.E.2d at 126. This Court held that Stebbins
was not entitled to wage indemnity compensation. Id. at 573, 466 S.E.2d at 126. Stebbins had
no average weekly wage because he had reported no earnings during the fifty-two-week period
preceding his incapacity. Id. Due to his voluntary retirement, Stebbins also had not suffered any
loss of wages or economic loss attributable to his period of disability. Id. at 574, 466 S.E.2d at
126. This Court held that
[a]n award of compensation in these circumstances would result in
a windfall to Stebbins and place him in a better economic position
than he would have enjoyed absent an injury. This outcome
ignores the purpose of the Act, moving beyond compensation for
loss of work ability and becoming a reward for intangible
damages.
Id.The Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion in Newton v. Fairfax Cnty. Police
Dep’t, 259 Va. 801, 529 S.E.2d 794 (2000). In Newton, a retired police officer was diagnosed
with occupational heart disease following his voluntary retirement. Id. at 803, 529 S.E.2d at 795.
He subsequently died from a fatal heart attack. Id. Like the firefighter in Stebbins, Newton had
not sought employment for the fifty-two-week period preceding his diagnosis and death. Id.
Applying Stebbins, the Supreme Court noted that “Newton had earned no wages during the 52
weeks preceding the date of the communication of the diagnosis of his occupational disease, and,
therefore, [he suffered] no economic loss.” Id. at 805, 529 S.E.2d at 795. The Supreme Court
held that Newton’s statutory beneficiaries were not entitled to wage indemnity benefits under
these circumstances. Id. at 805, 529 S.E.2d at 796.
-6-
Shaver argues that the present case is distinguishable from Newton and Stebbins because
he earned wage income within the fifty-two-week period preceding his incapacity. Shaver
argues that because he had an average weekly wage based on that income at the time of his
disability, he is entitled to wage indemnity benefits compensating him for the loss of this wage.
Shaver’s contention that he earned wages within fifty-two weeks of his incapacity is correct.
However, the receipt of those wages does not entitle him to wage indemnity benefits under the
particular circumstances of this case. As previously stated, average weekly wages are calculated
“‘to approximate the economic loss suffered by an employee or his beneficiaries when there is a
loss of earning capacity because of work-related injury or death.’” Stebbins, 21 Va. App. at 573,
466 S.E.2d at 126 (quoting Bosworth, 4 Va. App. at 163, 355 S.E.2d at 340). When an employee
does not suffer an economic loss due to a work-related injury, the calculation of an average
weekly wage is irrelevant.
Although Shaver earned wages within fifty-two weeks of his disability, he did not suffer
an actual loss of wages during his period of disability due to his voluntary retirement. At the
time of Shaver’s incapacity, he had been retired for approximately one and a half months.
Shaver had voluntarily retired from his employment based on his years of service, and he did not
plan to seek any other employment following his retirement.3 Shaver was not receiving any
wages during the period of his disability or planning to earn wages at a later date. Shaver did not
suffer an economic loss in the form of lost wages resulting from his disability. The commission
3
We note that retirement alone does not necessarily deprive an individual of his or her
earning capacity. In many cases, retired employees seek other employment following retirement.
As noted in Stebbins, a retired employee may be entitled to wage indemnity compensation if that
person is working in another position following retirement at the time of the occupational
disability, or is actively seeking or planning to seek employment at that time. See Stebbins, 21
Va. App. at 574, 466 S.E.2d at 126. Such a scenario, however, is not before the Court under the
facts of this case as Shaver candidly admitted that he had no intention to seek employment
following his retirement.
-7-
correctly denied Shaver wage indemnity benefits. As noted in Stebbins, an award of wage
indemnity compensation under these circumstances would result in a windfall to Shaver that
would place him in a better economic position than he would have enjoyed absent an injury. See
Stebbins, 21 Va. App. at 574, 466 S.E.2d at 126. This windfall would unjustly enrich Shaver as
long as he received wage indemnity compensation, absent any actual loss of wages, regardless of
whether he had earned wages earlier in the fifty-two-week period preceding his retirement.
We hold that the commission did not err in denying Shaver wage indemnity benefits
during the period of his total temporary disability. Although an average weekly wage could be
calculated for Shaver because he had earned wages during the fifty-two-week period preceding
his disability, Shaver suffered no loss of wages resulting from his occupational disease. An
award of wage indemnity benefits under these circumstances would unjustly enrich Shaver and
counter the purpose of the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Act. Accordingly, we affirm the
commission’s decision.
Affirmed.
-8-