Thompson v. STS Holdings, Inc., 213 N.C. App. 26

Plaintiff Thompson, an A&P mechanic, sustained a compensable injury while working for STS Holdings under a TIMCO contract in Greensboro in February 2008; STS’s workers’ compensation insurer was Wausau Insurance (Defendants).
Defendants initially paid Thompson at $213.34 per week, later raised to $329.58, until the deputy commissioner reduced it to $30 per week in July 2009.
The Commission found Thompson’s wages while with STS consisted only of hourly and overtime wages; per diem, travel pay, wage advances, and certain RC/RE amounts were not wages.
To compute Thompson’s average weekly wage, the Commission used method five under N.C.G.S. § 97-2(5) after finding methods one through four would not yield fair and just results; Thompson argued for aggregation of all wages, which the Commission did not permit.
The Commission then applied a credit against the disability payments for amounts paid in excess of the $30 weekly rate, and Thompson appealed on multiple grounds (including estoppel and evidentiary issues).
The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission’s decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
How is average weekly wage computed under §97-2(5)?	Thompson argues for aggregation of earnings from all employment under method five.	Defendants contend aggregation across multiple employments is not authorized by the statute.	Method five applied; aggregation across jobs not allowed.
Was the use of method five proper, or should methods two–four have been used for a fair result?	Thompson contends methods two–four could have yielded fair results.	Defendants show methods two–four would overstate Thompson’s wage relative to work STS would have provided.	Court affirmed use of method five after finding two–four unsuitable for fair results.
Can Thompson rely on equitable estoppel to block the reduction in compensation?	Estoppel should prevent reduction of benefits.	No Form 21 agreement existed; estoppel not applicable here.	Estoppel rejected; no authority to bar reduction.
Did the Commission properly award a credit for overpayments?	Credit improperly reduces Thompson’s compensation.	Credit is within Commission discretion and supported by the record.	Credit affirmed; no abuse of discretion.
Did the Commission properly admit or rely on certain evidence?	Admissibility of evidence challenged.	Evidence properly admitted; appeal not properly preserved.	Issue not preserved; arguments rejected.

McAninch v. Buncombe County Schools, 347 N.C. 126, 489 S.E.2d 375 (1997) (defines method five and fair results principle; cannot aggregate wages from multiple jobs)
Conyers v. New Hanover Cty. Schools, 188 N.C.App. 253, 654 S.E.2d 745 (2008) (method five may determine average by 52 weeks of wages in the prior employment; focus on result)
Joyner v. Oil Co., 266 N.C.519, 146 S.E.2d 447 (1966) (supports method five focus on substantive result)
Barber v. Going West Transp., Inc., 134 N.C.App. 428, 517 S.E.2d 914 (1999) (method five interpretation guidance)
Barnhardt v. Yellow Cab Co., 266 N.C. 419, 146 S.E.2d 479 (1966) (limits aggregation of wages to the employment in which injured)
Pope v. Johns Manville, 700 S.E.2d 22 (2010) (rejected aggregation across multiple employments even under method five)
Loch v. Entertainment Partners, 148 N.C.App. 106, 557 S.E.2d 182 (2001) (used to evaluate continuous work requirement for method one)
Liles v. Electric Co., 244 N.C. 653, 94 S.E.2d 790 (1956) (emphasizes fairness standard in §97-2(5))
Lineback v. Wake County Bd. of Comm'rs, 126 N.C.App. 678, 486 S.E.2d 252 (1997) (standard that findings must be supported by competent evidence)