I N THE SUPREME COURT O F THE STATE OF MONTANA
No. 84-323
TOM W. PUTNAM,
Claimant and Appellant,
CASTLE MOUNTAIN CORPORATION,
Employer,
UNITED P A C I F I C / R E L I A N C E INSURANCE COMPANY,
D e f e n d a n t and R e s p o n d e n t ,
and
LEONARD N I E L S E N , d / b / a N I E L S E N LOGGING,
Employer and Respondent,
STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND.
DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, Y: =; , k c i-,i tz - .r " %0' L ".,e3
Defendants and Respondents.
O R D E R
W e h a v e now c o n s i d e r e d t h e p e t i t i o n s for rehearing f i l e d
o n behalf of Tom W. P u t n a m a n d State C o m p e n s a t i o n I n s u r a n c e
Fund. We have concluded t h a t a revision i n our o p i n i o n i s
appropriate.
I T I S ORDERED:
1. T h a t the f u l l paragraph set f o r t h i m m e d i a t e l y fol-
lowing the statement of issues on page 2 of our o p i n i o n
decided June 13, 1985, i s hereby w i t h d r a w n , the withdrawn
paragraph being as follows: " I n i t i a l l y t h e r e were d i s p u t e s a s t o t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e i n s u r e r and t h e e x t e n t o f c o v e r a g e , a l l o f w h i c h h a v e b e e n re- solved. The r e s p o n d e n t i n t h i s p r o c e e d - ing i-s S t a t e Compensation I n s u r a n c e Fund ( S t a t e Fund) ." I n p l a c e of s u c h withdrawn p a r a g r a p h , t h e f o l l o w i n g p a r a g r a p h
is hereby i n s e r t e d i n o u r opinion:
"There i s a d i s p u t e a s t o t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e employer o f t h e c l a i m a n t . The Work- e r s ' Compensation C o u r t found t h a t c l a i m - a n t 'was a n e m p l o y e e o f e i t h e r N i e l s e n o r t h e d e f e n d a n t C a s t l e Mountain C o r p o r a - tion.' The r e s p o n d e n t i n t h i s p r o c e e d i n g i s S t a t e Compensation Insurance Fund ( S t a t e F u n d ) , which h a s a g r e e d t o a c c e p t l i a b i l i t y f o r t h e claimant's claim with a re'servation of rights against Castle Mountain C o r p o r a t i o n a n d i t s i n s u r a n c e carrier. W e d o n o t r u l e upon w h i c h p a r t y was t h e e m p l o y e r o f t h e c l a i m a n t . "
2. With t h e e x c e p t i o n o f t h e a c t i o n t a k e n i n p a r a g r a p h
1, t h e p e t i t i o n s f o r r e h e a r i n g a r e d e n i e d .
3. The o p i n i o n i n t h e a b o v e c a u s e d a t e d J u n e 1 3 , 1 9 8 5 ,
a s m o d i f i e d by t h e a b o v e p a r a g r a p h c h a n g e , i s approved and
c o n s t i t u t e s t h e f i n a l o inion i n t h i s cause. 4.J DATED t h i s 7 %ay o f J u l y , 1985.
Justice 0 '-- ' W e concur: ., ' -
A'- ,q,TL,& ccr(cyief Justice No. 84-323 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MOlJTANA 1985
CASTLE b10UNTAIN CORPORATION , Employer, and UNITED PACIFIC/mLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent, and LEONARD NIELSEN, d/b/a NIELSEN LOGGING, Employer and Respondent, and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, and DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, Defendants and Respondents.
APPEAL FROM: Workers' compensation Court, The Honorable Timothy Reardon, Judge presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant:
William T. Kelly, P.C.; Halverson, Sheehy, Prindle h Finn; Patrick Prindle, Billings, Montana For Respondents: Hughes, Kellner, Sullivan & Alke; John Sullivan, Helena, Montana Keefer, Roybal, Hansen, Stacey & Jarussi; Neil Keefer, Billings, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: Jan. 24, 1985 Decided: June 13, 1985 SUN e : 1985 3 Filed:
Clerk Mr. J u s t i c e F r e d J. Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t .
T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from t h e o r d e r o f t h e W o r k e r s ' Compen-
s a t i o n C o u r t g r a n t i n g p a r t i a l summary judgment. The a p p e a l
challenges t h e court's refusal t o apply t h e s t a t u t o r y penalty
t o medical benefits and a portion of t h e weekly temporary
total disability benefits. W e modify a p o r t i o n o f t h e o r d e r
a n d remand t h e c a u s e f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s .
The i s s u e s a r e :
1. Does t h e p e n a l t y p o r t i o n o f S 39-71-2907, MCA a p p l y
t o medica 1 b e n e f i t s ?
2. How s h o u l d t h e p e n a l t y p r o v i s i o n s o f S 39-71-2907, MA be applied t o t h e following: C
(a) Temporary t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s from t h e
date of i n j u r y on October 6 , 1981 t o J u l y 25, 1983, which
w e r e d u e on J u l y 2 5 , 1 9 8 3 and n o t p a i d u n t i l a f t e r O c t o b e r
11, 1983.
(b) M e d i c a l b e n e f i t s d u e on J u l y 25, 1 9 8 3 and n o t
p a i d u n t i l a f t e r O c t o b e r 1 1 , 1983.
3. Did t h e t e m p o r a r y t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y r a t e awarded t h e
c l a i m a n t p r o p e r l y i n c l u d e a l l wages e a r n e d a t t h e t i m e o f h i s
injury?
I n i t i a l l y t h e r e w e r e disputes a s t o t h e 1-dentity of t h e
i n s u r e r and t h e e x t e n t o f coverage, a l l . o f which have b e e n
resolved. The r e s p o n d e n t i n t h i s p r o c e e d i n g i s S t a t e Compen-
s a t i o n I n s u r a n c e Fund ( S t a t e Fund) . Claimant suffered injuries in two different unrelated
accidents. H e was injured on J a n u a r y 16, 1981, w h i l e em-
ployed by a d i f f e r e n t employer a s a t r u c k d r i v e r , receiving
w e e k l y wages o f $340 b a s e d upon a r a t e o f $8.50 p e r h o u r . As
a r e s u l t o f t h a t u n r e l a t e d a c c i d e n t , c l a i m a n t r e c e i v e d tempo-
r a r y t o t a l c o m p e n s a t i o n b e n e f i t s o f $219 p e r week f r o m J a n u -
a r y 1 6 , 1 9 8 1 t o o n o r a b o u t November 1 0 , 1 9 8 1 . On O c t o b e r 6 , 1981, while employed for a few days by Leonard Nielsen,
c l a i m a n t was s e v e r e l y i n j u r e d when a dump t r u c k r a n o v e r h i m .
Initially, the State Fund denied the claim for the
October 6 , 1981 a c c i d e n t . The u n d i s p u t e d f i n d i n g s o f f a c t b y
t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t i n c l u d e t h e f o l l o w i n g :
1. I n J u l y 1 9 8 1 , t h e S t a t e Fund s e n t N i e l - s e n ( e m p l o y e r )
a premium statement for April 1 t o June 30, 1981. That
s t a t e m e n t n o t i f i e d N i e l s e n t h a t p a y m e n t o f t h e amount d u e was
t o b e made w i t h i n 30 d a y s o f t h e s t a t e m e n t o r c o v e r a g e would
be cancelled.
2. On September 2, 1981, following non-payment by
Nielsen, the State Fund sent Nielsen a "courtesy notice"
s t a t i n q t h a t h i s c o v e r a g e was s c h e d u l e d f o r c a n c e l l a t i o n on
O c t o b e r 1 , 1981.
3. On O c t o b e r 8 , 1 3 8 1 ( 2 d a y s a f t e r c l a i m a n t ' s i n j u r y ) ,
N i e l s e n ' s p a y m e n t was r e c e i v e d b y t h e S t a t e Fund.
4. T h r o u g h some t y p e o f a mix-up w i t h i n t h e S t a t e F u n d ,
t h e p a y m e n t was n o t p r o p e r l y n o t e d a n d N i e l s e n ' s c o v e r a g e was
cancelled.
5. A t the t i m e of the claimant's accident, i t was t h e
p o l i c y o f t h e S t a t e Fund t o a l l o w a n e m p l o y e r a t e n d a y g r a c e
period from t h e d a t e o f c a n c e l l a t i o n . ( N i e l s e n ' s p a y m e n t on
O c t o b e r 8 was made w i t h i n t h e t e n d a y p e r i o d from t h e c a n c e l -
l a t i o n d a t e o f October 1, 1981.)
6. On O c t o b e r 2 6 , 1981, c l a i m a n t ' s a t t o r n e y forwarded a
claim for compensation in which Nielsen was listed as
employer.
7. By letter dated October 29, 1981, the Workers'
Compensation Division advised claimant's attorney that
N i e l s e n was u n i n s u r e d .
The W o r k e r s ' Compensation Court also found that there
was no further communication between the Division or the S t a t e Fund and c l a i m a n t f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 7 m o n t h s . Claim-
ant's attorney called State Fund on March 18, 1983, and
received a letter advising t h a t Nielsen's policy was can-
c e l l e d b y S t a t e Fund on O c t o b e r 1, 1 9 8 1 f o r f a i l u r e t o p a y
t h e premiums. C l a i m a n t f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r emergency h e a r -
ing. A t that point, t h e S t a t e Fund s t a r t e d a n i n q u i r y i n t o
i t s p r i o r d e t e r m i n a t i o n on t h e q u e s t i o n o f c o v e r a g e . On J u l y
2 5 , 1 9 8 3 , t h e B u r e a u C h i e f o f t h e S t a t e Fund was a d v i s e d t h a t
Nielsen's c o v e r a g e was i n e f f e c t on O c t o b e r 6, 1981. The
S t a t e Fund d e t e r m i n e d t h a t it s h o u l d a c c e p t l i a b i l i t y f o r t h e
claimant's claim. V a r i o u s p r o c e d u r a l s t e p s f o l l o w e d , and t h e
S t a t e Fund g a v e a number o f a s s u r a n c e s r e g a r d i n g a c c e p t a n c e
o f l i a b i l i t y and i t s w i l l i n g n e s s t o pay b o t h compensation and
medical b e n e f i t s .
On October 11, 1983, the Workers' Compensation Court
h e a r d o r a l a r g u m e n t o n t h e c a s e a n d o r d e r e d t h e S t a t e Fund t o
make p a y m e n t s o f b o t h medical b e n e f i t s and temporary t o t a l
disability benefits. The c o u r t t h e n c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e 1 9 8 1
d e n i a l o f l i a b i l i t y f o r c l a i m a n t ' s c l a i m was n o t u n r e a s o n a b l e
w i t h i n t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e p e n a l t y s t a t u t e , 5 39-71-2907, MCA.
However, t h e c o u r t a l s o reached the following conclusions:
"Despite i t s continued agreement t o do so, t h e S t a t e Fund had n o t p a i d c o m p e n s a t i o n a n d m e d i c a l benefits t o t h e claimant a s of t h e date of o r a l argument. T h i s d e l a y was u n r e a s o n a b l e , and i n v i t e s a penalty. The d i f f i c u l t y l i e s i n d e t e r m i n i n g a t w h a t p o i n t t h e S t a t e Fund s h o u l d h a v e r e a s o n a b l y r e a l i z e d i t s e r r o r and p r o m p t l y t e n d e r e d t h e s e benefits. ...
"The Fund a c t e d p r o m p t l y t o a s c e r t a i n t h e t r u t h o f t h e improper c a n c e l l a t i o n a l l e g a t i o n found i n t h e P e t i t i o n , b u t i t s d e l a y from J u l y 2 5 , 1983, t o t h e o r d e r o f b e n e f i t s ( O c t o b e r 11, 1 9 8 3 ) was u n r e a s o n - able. T h e r e f o r e a 20% p e n a l t y s h a l l b e a s s e s s e d t o temporary t o t a l b e n e f i t s due t h e c l a i m a n t d u r i n g t h a t period. " The c o u r t t h e n a d j u d g e d t h a t c l a i m a n t w a s e n t i t l e d t o a 2 0 %
i n c r e a s e i n h i s temporary t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s f r o m J u l y
2 5 , 1 9 8 3 u n t i l O c t o b e r 11, 1 9 8 3 .
Does t h e p e n a l t y p o r t i o n o f 39-71-2907, M A apply t o C
medical b e n e f i t s ?
The p e r t i n e n t p o r t i o n o f § 39-71-2907, MCA i s :
"When p a y m e n t o f c o m p e n s a t i o n h a s b e e n u n r e a s o n a b l y d e l a y e d o r r e f u s e d by an i n s u r e r , e i t h e r p r i o r o r subsequent t o t h e i s s u a n c e o f an o r d e r by t h e workers' compensation judge g r a n t i n g a c l a i m a n t compensation b e n e f i t s , t h e f u l l amount o f t h e compensation b e n e f i t s due a c l a i m a n t , between t h e t i m e compensation b e n e f i t s w e r e d e l a y e d o r r e f u s e d and t h e d a t e o f t h e o r d e r g r a n t i n g a c l a i m a n t c o m p e n s a t i o n b e n e f i t s , may b e i n c r e a s e d b y t h e w o r k e r s ' compensation judge by 20%."
T h i s issue h a s j u s t been r e s o l v e d by t h e c a s e o f C a r l s o n
v. Cain (Mont. 19851, P.2d , 4 2 St.Rep. 695. In
t h a t c a s e , w e concluded t h a t a n award f o r medical payments
may b e i n c r e a s e d b y t h e W o r k e r s ' C o m p e n s a t i o n C o u r t p u r s u a n t
to t h e foregoing s t a t u t e .
How s h o u l d t h e p e n a l t y p r o v i s i o n s o f S 39-71-2907, MA C
be a p p l i e d t o t h e f o l l o w i n g :
(a) Temporary t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s from t h e d a t e
o f i n j u r y on O c t o b e r 6 , 1 9 8 1 t o J u l y 2 5 , 1 9 8 3 , w h i c h w e r e d u e
on J u l y 2 5 , 1983 and n o t p a i d u n t i l a f t e r O c t o b e r 1 1 , 1983.
(b) Medical b e n e f i t s due on J u l y 25, 1983 and n o t p a i d
u n t i l a f t e r O c t o b e r 11, 1 9 8 3 .
As t o ( a ) weekly b e n e f i t s from October 6, 1981 t o J u l y
25, 1983, t h e lower c o u r t found a r e a s o n a b l e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r
t h e f a i l u r e t o pay. I t t h e r e f o r e concluded t h a t t h e d e l a y i n
p a y m e n t u p t o J u l y 2 5 , 1 9 8 3 was n o t a p r o p e r b a s i s f o r p e n a l -
ty. In its order of partial summary j u d g m e n t and in its
subsequent order denying the petition for rehearing, the Workers' Compensation Court concluded t h a t t h e p e n a l t y was
w a r r a n t e d o n c e t h e S t a t e Fund a c k n o w l e d g e d i t w a s l i a b l e f o r
compensation b e n e f i t s on J u l y 25, 1983. The c o u r t further
concluded that the penalty should be assessed on b e n e f i t s
which accrued between July 25, 1983 and O c t o b ~ r 11, 1 9 8 3 .
The stipulation of the parties established t h a t a s of
O c t o b e r 11, 1 9 8 3 , the f o l l o w i n g a m o u n t s w e r e d u e from t h e
S t a t e Fund t o t h e c l a i m a n t :
P a s t due medical expenses $26,048.70
P a s t due temporary t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y 11,979.42
Lump sum a d v a n c e 5,852.00
Tota 1 $43,880.12
W e d i s r e g a r d t h e lump sum a d v a n c e of $ 5 , 8 5 2 . 0 0 , as that
was n o t a p a s t d u e p o r t i o n of t h e claim. It appears t h a t
s u b s t a n t i a l l y a l l o f t h e medica 1 e x p e n s e s o f $26,048.70 and
the past due temporary total disability benefits of
$11,979.42 were actually due to the claimant on July 25,
1983. The l o w e r c o u r t i n c o r r e c t l y a s s u m e d t h a t n o p a r t o f
temporary total disability benefits or medical benefits
a l r e a d y d u e on J u l y 2 5 , 1 9 8 3 c o u l d b e s u b j e c t t o t h e s t a t u t o -
ry penalty.
To t h e e x t e n t t h a t b o t h m e d i c a l b e n e f i t s a n d t e m p o r a r y
total disability benefits d u e on July 25, 1983 had n o t i n
fact been paid by October 11, 1983, such a m o u n t s may be
subject t o a penalty. The amount o f s u c h a p e n a l t y i s t o b e
d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e c o u r t a t i t s d i s c r e t i o n u n d e r 5 39-71-2907,
MCA. The r e c o r d i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o a l l o w u s t o d e t e r m i n e
the extent of t h e p e n a l t y as t o e i t h e r medical b e n e f i t s or
temporary t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s found t o b e due on J u l y
25, 1983. I n a d d i t i o n , i t would n o t b e a p p r o p r i a t e f o r u s t o
a t t e m p t t o make a d e c i s i o n t h a t 5 39-71-2907, MCA, commits t o
t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e Workers' Compensation judge. In regard t o Issue 2 ( a ) and ( b ) , w e remand t h e c a u s e t o
t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t f o r determination a s t o t h e
extent of the penalty, i f any, to be charged upon those
b e n e f i t s which w e r e due on J u l y 25, 1983.
I11
Did the temporary total disability rate awarded the
c l a i m a n t p r o p e r l y i n c l u d e a l l wages e a r n e d a t t h e t i m e o f h i s
i njury?
On March 3, 1983, t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t en-
tered findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment in
Putnam v . Edson Express, Inc., a n d Home I n s u r a n c e Company.
The Edson E x p r e s s c a s e i n v o l v e d a c l a i m b y t h e p r e s e n t c l a i m -
a n t f o r a d d i t i o n a l temporary t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y based on i n j u -
ries from t h e J a n u a r y 1 6 , 1981 a c c i d e n t , which h e c l a i m e d had
been aggravated by t h e October 6 , 1981 a c c i d e n t . The Work-
ers' Compensation Court concluded that claimant was not
temporarily t o t a l l y disabled a s a r e s u l t o f t h e January 16,
1981 a c c i d e n t and that the January accident was not the
proximate cause o f c l a i m a n t ' s c u r r e n t c o n d i t i o n . The c o u r t
further pointed out that claimant had received temporary
t o t a l disability benefits of $219 p e r week f r o m J a n u a r y 1 6 ,
1981 t o on or a b o u t November 10, 1981, a t which t i m e the
temporary total benefits were terminated by the insurance
carrier. The c o u r t n o t e d , "The i n s u r e r h a s c o n t i n u e d t o p a y
biweekly p a r t i a l compensation b e n e f i t s t o t h e c l a i m a n t a t t h e
maximum $109.50 rate." The c o u r t also specified that the
e v i d e n c e was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o a l l o w t h e c o u r t t o make a d e t e r -
mination of the permanent partial disability benefits to
which the c l a i m a n t may be entitled. There i s no further
e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e S t a t e Fund ' s p a y m e n t o f p a r t i a l compensa-
tion benefits of $109.50 f r o m November 10, 1981 t o on or a b o u t March 3 , 1 9 8 3 . The o r d e r d o e s e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e r e had
b e e n n o award o f p e r m a n e n t p a r t i a l d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s .
C l a i m a n t was i n j u r e d o n O c t o b e r 6 , 1981, w h i l e e a r n i n g
$6 p e r h o u r o r $240 p e r week f r o m L e o n a r d N i e l s e n . Claimant
s t a t e s t h a t t h i s t e m p o r a r y j o b was t o l a s t o n l y a f e w d a y s ,
and that he began working f o r Neilsen in October 1981 i n
o r d e r t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r h e was a g a i n c a p a b l e o f working.
Claimant argues that the employment w i t h Nielsen was
o n l y t e m p o r a r y employment and t h a t h i s p e r m a n e n t e m p l o y m e n t
r a t e w a s $340 p e r w e e k , w h i c h h e h a d r e c e i v e d w h i l e w o r k i n g
f o r Edson E x p r e s s p r i o r t o J a n u a r y 1 6 , 1981. In the alterna-
t i v e , h e a r g u e s t h a t t h e amount o f $ 1 0 9 . 5 0 p e r week compensa-
t i o n b e n e f i t s f r o m Home I n s u r a n c e Company s h o u l d b e a d d e d t o
t h e N e i l - s e n w e e k l y wage o f $240.
S e c t i o n 39-71-701 ( I ) , MCA, i n pertinent p a r t provides:
" ( 1 ) Weekly c o m p e n s a t i o n b e n e f i t s f o r i n j u r y producing t o t a l temporary d i s a b i l - i t y s h a l l b e 66 2 / 3 % o f t h e w a g e s re- ceived a t t h e t i m e of t h e injury. . . ." S e c t i o n 39-71-116, MCA, d e f i n e s "temporary t o t a l d i s a b i l - i t y "
and " w a g e s " a s f o l l o w s :
"(19) ' T e m p o r a r y t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y ' means a c o n d i t i o n r e s u l t i n g from an i n j u r y a s defined i n t h i s chapter t h a t r e s u l t s i n t o t a l l o s s o f w a g e s and e x i s t s u n t i l t h e i n j u r e d worker i s a s f a r r e s t o r e d a s t h e permanent c h a r a c t e r o f t h e i n j u r i e s w i l l permit. D i s a b i l i t y s h a l l b e supported by a preponderance of medical evidence.
" ( 2 0 ) 'Wages' means t h e a v e r a g e g r o s s e a r n i n g s r e c e i v e d b y t h e employee a t t h e t i m e of t h e i n j u r y f o r t h e usual hours of employment i n a w e e k , a n d o v e r t i m e i s n o t t o be considered. . . ." At the t i m e of t h e October 6 , 1981 a c c i d e n t , claimant
was r e c e i v i n g a w e e k l y wage o f $ 2 4 0 . T h a t amount c o n s t i t u t e s
h i s "average g r o s s earnings" under t h e s t a t u t e . The f a c t s d o
not demonstrate a reason f o r c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e wages p a i d
by a different employer nine months prior to the present i n j u r y can be considered a s t h e average g r o s s earnings a t t h e
t i m e o f i njury.
We conclude t h e r e i s no b a s i s f o r using the $340 p e r
week p a i d p r i o r t o J a n u a r y 1 6 , 1 9 8 1 a s t h e p e r m a n e n t e m p l o y -
ment rate for claimant a t the t i m e of t h e October 6, 1981
accident.
Claimant a r g u e s i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e t h a t h i s wages a s o f
October 6, 1981 should include the $109.50 being paid as
partial compensation b e n e f i t s by t h e i n s u r a n c e company for
h i s f o r m e r employer, Edson E x p r e s s . The r e c o r d i s i n c o m p l e t e
as t o t h e n a t u r e o f t h e $109.50 p a y m e n t s b e i n g made by H o m e
Insurance. The a m o u n t o f t h e $ 1 0 9 . 5 0 payment i s 50% o f t h e
temporary total disability benefits of $219.00, which was
awarded in connection with the January 16 Edson Express
accident. This suggests that s u c h p a y m e n t s may be i n the
nature of permanent partial disability benefit payments.
C l a i m a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e $109.50 s h o u l d b e added t o h i s
$ 2 4 0 . 0 0 w e e k l y wage i n c o m p u t i n g t h e t e m p o r a r y t o t a l d i s a b i l -
i t y b e n e f i t s t o which h e i s e n t i t l e d f o r t h e October 6 a c c i -
dent. T h i s t y p e o f s t a c k i n g would n o t b e p r o p e r . It is n o t
c o m p a r a b l e t o t h e s t a c k i n g o f wages from c o n c u r r e n t employ-
rnent w h i c h h a s b e e n approved i n other cases. In t h i s in-
s t a n c e , i t would b e u n f a i r t o i n c l u d e t h e $ 1 0 9 . 5 0 p a y m e n t s i n
t h e w e e k l y wage a n d p a y 2 / 3 o f t h a t $ 1 0 9 . 5 0 a s a part of the
temporary total disability benefits, while the claimant a t
t h e same t i m e r e c e i v e d t h e $ 1 0 9 . 5 0 p a y m e n t s f r o m Home I n s u r -
ance i n connection with t h e o t h e r accident.
We t h e r e f o r e a f f i r m t h e award o f temporary t o t a l dis-
a b i l i t y by the Workers' Compensation Court based upon the
a v e r a g e w e e k l y wage o f $ 2 4 0 . 0 0 .
W e remand t h i s c a u s e t o t h e W o r k e r s ' Compensation C o u r t
f o r f u r t h e r a c t i o n i n accordance with t h i s opinion. We c o n c u r :
t