Bullard v. T.R. Lee Oil Company, I.C. NO. W44674.

Injury date: August 6, 2009; parties under North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.
Employer-employee relationship existed; employer had three or more employees; EMC Insurance on risk.
Defendants accepted the claim as compensable and paid medical expenses and temporary total disability benefits at $253.03 weekly.
Pretrial Agreement and Form 22 wage data (with 2008-2009 earnings) were admitted; issue is Plaintiff's average weekly wage.
Plaintiff, age 40, began as Service Tech December 15, 2008; job duties spanned propane and automotive departments; occasional automotive shop work.
Form 22 shows winter-heavy hours with substantial variability; dispute centers on the correct method to compute average weekly wage.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appropriate method to compute average weekly wage.	Plaintiff's wage should be calculated by method that reflects seasonal and hours variability (method three).	Defendants advocate method five or incorporation of other employee wages; reliance on alternative methods is improper.	Method three governs; no use of method five or Taylor’s lower wage.
Credit for potential overpayment tied to Form 22 calculation.	Overpayment is not warranted; wage calculation aligns with actual earnings.	Bond v. FosterMasonry supports rejecting their method and allows credit for overpayment.	Overlap: defendants credited for overpayment; plaintiff’s average wage remains as determined.

McAninch v. Buncombe County Schools, 347 N.C. 126 (N.C. 1997) (multimethod wage calculation priority; fair results guidance)
Bond v. FosterMasonry, Inc., 139 N.C. App. 123 (N.C. App. 2000) (rejects average weekly wage via daily wage method; supports credit for overpayment)
Conyers v. New Hanover Cty. Schools, 188 N.C. App. 253 (N.C. App. 2008) (guidance on fair and just wage calculations under §97-2(5))