Taylor v. Diamond State Port Corp., 14 A.3d 536

Taylor was injured August 2, 2007 while employed by Diamond State Port Corporation.
She had 12 years of continuous employment as a laborer earning $18/hour, with a sporadic schedule due to lack of available ships and her own health issues.
In the 26 weeks preceding the injury, Taylor did not work 10 weeks and worked 16 weeks, earning $12,610 total.
There was a dispute whether her average weekly wage should be calculated under 19 Del. C. § 2302(b) or § 2302(b)(1) given her limited weeks of actual work.
IAB and the Superior Court applied § 2302(b); Taylor appealed arguing § 2302(b)(1) should apply to compensate for lost earning capacity.
The Delaware Supreme Court reversed, holding that § 2302(b)(1) applies because Taylor’s “worked” means “work actually performed.”

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
How to calculate average weekly wage under § 2302(b) and its subsections	Taylor argues § 2302(b)(1) should govern since she worked only 16 of 26 weeks	Diamond State argues § 2302(b) (and not § 2302(b)(1)) governs due to employment across 26 weeks	Taylor's interpretation is correct; § 2302(b)(1) applies when employee worked at least 13 weeks

Howell v. Supermarkets Gen. Corp., 340 A.2d 833 (Del. 1975) (illustrates lost earning capacity concept in workers’ comp)
Dewey Beach Enters., Inc. v. Bd. of Adjustment, 1 A.3d 305 (Del. 2010) (statutory construction framework; ambiguity analysis)
Oceanport Indus., Inc. v. Wilmington Stevedores, Inc., 636 A.2d 892 (Del. 1994) (principles of harmonious construction in statutory interpretation)
Bay Surgical Servs. v. Swier, 900 A.2d 646 (Del. 2006) (ambiguity and interpretation in § 2302 context)
State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. v. Patterson, 7 A.3d 454 (Del. 2010) (dissent cited regarding interpretation of statutory intent)