Opinion
CASE NO. 1066 CRD-8-90-7
JUNE 5, 1991
The claimant appeared pro se.
The respondents were represented by Lucas Strunk, Esq., and Anne Kelly Zovas, Esq., Pomeranz, Drayton Stabnick.
This Petition for Review from the June 25, 1990 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner for the Eighth District was heard November 30, 1990 before a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi, and Commissioners Frank Verrilli and Donald Doyle.
OPINION
Claimant, an iron worker appearing pro se, seeks to have his average weekly wage recalculated. Claimant was injured April 17, 1989 in the course of employment with the respondent Leake Nelson. He had worked only three weeks for this employer prior to the date of injury and earned gross wages of $2,152.00 in that three week period. Therefore the commissioner found an average weekly wage pursuant to Sec. 31-310, C.G.S. of $717.60. This gave claimant a weekly compensation rate of $478.42, 66 2/3% of $717.60.
The appellant contends that his average weekly wage should have been calculated on, the basis of his wages earned from all employers in, the preceding twenty-six weeks prior to his injury. He bases this contention on the employment pattern existing in the construction industry whereby iron workers work for many different employers as they go from job to job in the course of a year.
Section 31-310 provides in pertinent part:
For the purposes of this chapter, the average weekly wage shall be ascertained by dividing the total wages received by the injured worker from the employer in whose service he is injured during the twenty-six calendar weeks immediately preceding that during which he was injured, by the number of calendar weeks during which, or any portion of which, such worker was actually employed by such employer. . . . (emphasis ours)
The language in the statute is clear. Absent any latent ambiguities, we must apply the statute as written. "When language used if, a statute is clear and unambiguous, its meaning is nor subject to modification on construction," Cilley v. Lamphere, 206 Conn. 6, 9-10 (1988). "`It is well settled that a statute must be applied as its words direct'", All Brand Importers, Inc. v. Department of Liquor Control, 213 Conn. 184, 194 (1989) quoting New Haven v. United Illuminating Co., 168 Conn. 478, 485 (1975).
The appeal is dismissed and the Eighth District Finding and Dismissal is affirmed.
Commissioners Frank Verrilli and Donald Doyle concur.