Mark D. Powers v. Warwick Public Schools, 204 A.3d 1078

On 12/31/2012 Mark D. Powers injured his knee while working for Warwick Public Schools and missed work from 1/1/2013 to 4/3/2013.
During the 26 weeks before the injury Powers received both part‑time wages from the school district and state work‑sharing benefits under R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-44-69.
Powers filed a workers’ compensation claim challenging the calculation of his average weekly wage under R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-33-20 because the WCC calculation excluded the work‑sharing payments.
At trial the parties stipulated Powers was a part‑time employee and had received “unemployment compensation benefits” via a work‑sharing plan; they disputed whether those payments should be included in average weekly wage.
The WCC trial judge and the Appellate Division held work‑sharing benefits are not wages and therefore are excluded from the § 28-33-20 average weekly wage calculation. Powers sought certiorari to the Rhode Island Supreme Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Powers is bound by stipulation that he was a part‑time employee	Stipulation was a mistake and should not estop him from arguing full‑time status	Stipulation of fact is conclusive and removes the issue from controversy	Court: stipulation that he was part‑time is a factual admission and binding absent fraud/mistake proven; issue not reopenable
Whether work‑sharing benefits paid by the State count as "wages" for average weekly wage under § 28‑33‑20	Work‑sharing benefits are akin to wages/earnings and should be included (like holiday/vacation pay)	Work‑sharing benefits are paid by the State for hours not worked and align with unemployment compensation, so they are not wages	Court: work‑sharing benefits are not "wages" under § 28‑33‑20 and must be excluded from average weekly wage calculation

DeCurtis v. Visconti, Boren & Campbell, Ltd., 152 A.3d 413 (R.I. 2017) (scope of Supreme Court certiorari review in workers’ compensation cases)
Trainor v. Grieder, 23 A.3d 1171 (R.I. 2011) (questions of law and statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
In re McBurney Law Services, Inc., 798 A.2d 877 (R.I. 2002) (stipulations of fact are conclusive on parties)
T I Federal Credit Union v. DelBonis, 72 F.3d 921 (1st Cir. 1995) (parties cannot stipulate to legal conclusions binding the court)
Smith v. Colonial Knife Co., Inc., 731 A.2d 724 (R.I. 1999) (holiday pay included in average weekly wage)
Cole v. Davol, Inc., 679 A.2d 875 (R.I. 1996) (workers’ compensation as substitute for weekly wages employer would have paid)
Barrett v. Barrett, 894 A.2d 891 (R.I. 2006) (statutory words given their ordinary meaning)