On appeal, the carrier argued that the use of a 260 multiple artificially inflated the claimant’s average weekly wage rendering a 260 multiple an “unfair” representation of the claimant’s earnings.  Ruling for the carrier on appeal, the Board Panel invoked WCL § 14(3) to institute a “205-day multiple” which just-so happened to be the exact number of days worked by the claimant on her C-240.  Applying this multiple, then applying the 1/52 provision of WCL § 14(4) resulted in an AWW identical to the AWW obtained by using a 52-week divisor.