Lowes No. 0509 and Lowes Home Centers, Inc. v. Allen Vernon Stanley ( 2007 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Humphreys, Haley and Petty
Argued at Salem, Virginia
LOWES NO. 0509 AND
LOWES HOME CENTERS, INC.
MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
v. Record No. 2309-06-3 JUDGE WILLIAM G. PETTY
MAY 29, 2007
ALLEN VERNON STANLEY
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
Thomas H. Miller (Roberta Paluck; Frankl, Miller & Webb, LLP, on
briefs), for appellants.
Michael L. Ritchie (Ritchie Law Firm, P.L.C., on brief), for
appellee.
Lowes Home Centers, Inc. (Lowes) appeals the Workers’ Compensation Commission’s
decision modifying Allen Stanley’s (claimant) average weekly wage after finding claimant’s two
jobs were “substantially similar” and thus allowing him to combine his earnings to calculate his
average weekly wage. Lowes argues that the commission’s finding is not supported by credible
evidence and should be reversed. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the commission.
I. BACKGROUND
On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party prevailing
below. See R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v. Mullins, 10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788
(1990). “[W]e do not judge the credibility of witnesses or weigh the evidence on appeal.”
Celanese Fibers Co. v. Johnson, 229 Va. 117, 121, 326 S.E.2d 687, 690 (1985). Instead, we are
bound by the commission’s findings of fact so long as “there was credible evidence presented
*
Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. Moreover,
as this opinion has no precedential value, we recite only those facts necessary to our holding.
such that a reasonable mind could conclude that the fact in issue was proved,” Westmoreland
Coal Co. v. Campbell, 7 Va. App. 217, 222, 372 S.E.2d 411, 415 (1988), even if evidence exists
in the record that would support a different finding, Morris v. Badger Powhatan/Figgie Int’l, Inc.,
3 Va. App. 276, 279, 348 S.E.2d 876, 877 (1986); Russell Loungewear v. Gray, 2 Va. App. 90,
95, 341 S.E.2d 824, 826 (1986).
So viewed, the evidence reveals that on October 6, 2004, claimant suffered a
compensable injury to his left ankle. When injured, claimant was working as a delivery driver
for Lowes. As a delivery driver, his primary responsibility was to deliver appliances to
customers. His duties included loading the delivery truck, delivering the appliances to the
customers’ homes, unloading the items, and setting them up in the homes. Occasionally, he
would also remove old appliances.
During this time period, claimant also delivered morning newspapers. His work
responsibilities included picking up bundles of newspapers early in the morning, preparing them
for delivery, and delivering the newspapers to approximately 340 customers. Claimant used his
personal vehicle to deliver the newspapers either to newspaper tubes located at the end of
customers’ driveways or to customers’ porches.
The deputy commissioner found that claimant’s employments were not “substantially
similar.” The deputy commissioner reasoned that the primary missions of the two jobs were
dissimilar “because of the different industries involved” and “because of the distinctly different
nature of the products delivered as well as the significant difference in the manner of delivery of
those products.” Moreover, the deputy commissioner determined that “the skills and job duties
involved in the two positions were substantially dissimilar.” Therefore, the deputy commissioner
excluded wages earned by claimant in his concurrent employment from the average weekly wage
calculation. Claimant appealed.
-2-
On appeal, the commission reversed the deputy commissioner after determining it was
error for the deputy commissioner to compare the nature of the employers, as opposed to the
nature of the employments, in determining substantial similarity. The commission then
compared the two employments and set forth the following findings in its opinion:
The claimant performed delivery work for both employers. The
products differed, both in quantity and quality, but the duties and
skills required in the work were substantially similar – in both jobs
the claimant picked up the product, followed a delivery route, and
delivered the product. He was required to load a vehicle, drive a
vehicle, follow a delivery route, and make deliveries.
Additionally, the “primary missions” of the two employments were
similar – providing customer delivery services.
As a result of these findings, the commission found that the two employments were
substantially similar to warrant combining claimant’s earnings to calculate his average weekly
wage.
II. ANALYSIS
Lowes argues that the commission’s finding that the two employments were substantially
similar is not supported by credible evidence and should be reversed. Specifically, Lowes asserts
that claimant’s position of delivery driver for Lowes required that claimant “possess skills
beyond those of a mere delivery driver” and therefore differed from his job of delivering
newspapers.1 We disagree.
In reviewing this case we recognize that “[t]he findings of the commission, if based upon
credible evidence, are conclusive and binding upon this Court.” Mercy Tidewater Ambulance
Serv. v. Carpenter, 29 Va. App. 218, 223, 511 S.E.2d 418, 420 (1999) (citing Code § 65.2-706;
Falls Church Const. Co. v. Laidler, 254 Va. 474, 478-79, 493 S.E.2d 521, 524 (1997)).
1
At oral argument, Lowes argued alleged differences in the two employments that,
according to the record, Lowes never presented to the commission for consideration. Therefore,
Rule 5A:18 bars our consideration of the new evidence on appeal. Overhead Door Co. of
Norfolk v. Lewis, 29 Va. App. 52, 62, 509 S.E.2d 535, 540 (1999).
-3-
Under Virginia law, workers’ compensation benefits are computed based upon the
employee’s “average weekly wage.” See Code § 65.2-101. When an employee is injured on one
job, the employee’s earnings also include the earnings from a concurrent job that is
“substantially similar.” See Frederick Fire and Rescue v. Dodson, 20 Va. App. 440, 443, 457
S.E.2d 783, 784 (1995). To determine whether two jobs are “substantially similar,” we examine
the following factors:
(1) the duties and skills of each job, and (2) the primary mission of
the employee on each job. In every situation where the
commission is asked to determine whether two or more jobs are
substantially similar, the commission must consider not only the
particular duties of each job, but also the general nature or type of
employment of the two jobs.
Carpenter, 29 Va. App. at 224, 511 S.E.2d at 421 (internal citations and quotation marks
omitted).
Here, the commission found that claimant performed delivery work for both employers.
Although he delivered different products – appliances and newspapers – the duties required to
deliver the products were substantially similar. Both jobs required that claimant pick up the
product, load a vehicle, drive a vehicle, follow a delivery route, and deliver the product.
Moreover, the “primary missions” of both employments involved “providing customer delivery
services,” a similar goal. See Creedle Sales Co., Inc. v. Edmonds, 24 Va. App. 24, 480 S.E.2d
123 (1997).
III. CONCLUSION
Credible evidence in the record supports the commission’s finding that claimant’s
employment at Lowes as a delivery driver was substantially similar to his job of delivering
newspapers. Therefore, we affirm the commission’s conclusion that claimant’s two
-4-
employments were substantially similar for purposes of computing claimant’s average weekly
wage.
Affirmed.
-5-