Although Letteney addressed out-of-state earnings claimed to be the basis for a benefit computation pursuant to § 35C, we see no relevant distinction between that section and § 35B, insofar as the above reasoning applies. See Camara's Case, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 8, 14 n. 12 (2007); Eifler v. Flintkote, Inc., 13 Mass. Workers' Comp. Rep. 394, 398-399 (1999) (under § 35C, last Massachusetts wages earned by employee — in 1966 — and not later wages from self-employment, governed widow's claim under § 31). Applying the rationale inLetteney, supra, we hold that an employee's average weekly wage from out-of-state earnings cannot be used to compute the "rate in effect" at the time of a "subsequent injury" under § 35B.

Arthur Jackson, Esq., for the self-insurer Pursuant to the decision of the Massachusetts Appeals Court inCamara's Case, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 8 (2007), "the employee's benefits shall be adjusted under § 34B based on the change in the average weekly wage [in the commonwealth] between February 4, 1994, and each applicable review date." Id. at 14-15.