argues that the district court erred in giving Loredo credit for twenty-five weeks during which, due to another on-the-job injury, Loredo did not work. Staftex argues that by dividing Loredo’s earnings by twenty-seven, which the district court did to account for Lore-do’s twenty-five weeks on disability, the ALJ violated 33 U.S.C. § 910(d). This argument is without merit. Although section 910(d) states that the ALJ should divide annual earnings by fifty-two, the Board has frequently held that, when calculating annual earnings, an ALJ may account for time lost due to a claimant’s job-related injury. See, e.g., Brien v. Precision Valve, 23 BRBS 209 (1990); see also Hawthorne v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, U.S. Dept. of Labor, 844 F.2d 318, 320 (6th Cir.l988)(<HOLDING>). Thus, although the ALJ should have increased
holding that aljs should account for time lost due to a strike or an injury caused by a strike holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to strike when movant failed to show prejudice holding that immunity is not waived for injury or death caused by negligent supervision holding that although not required to do so trial court had discretion to strike defendants affidavit when he refused to submit to crossexamination holding that trial counsel acted unreasonably in using a peremptory strike on a juror who had already been excused for cause