Title: RONSHAUGEN v RAMSEY ENGINEERING CO

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 12790 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T OF THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1975 ROBERT A. RONSHAUGEN, P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, -vs - R A M S E Y ENGINEERING CO. e t a l . , Employer, and NATIONAL BEN FRANKLIN INSURANCE C O M P A N Y , Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the Thirteenth J u d i c i a l District, Hon. Robert H. Wilson, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record : For Appellant : Lee Overfeldt argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana For Respondent: Pedersen and Herndon, B i l l i n g s , Montana Donald R. Herndon argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted: January 22, 1975 Decided: 6.E'B 1 4 1975 M r . Chief J u s t i c e James T. Harrison delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s an appeal from t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Yellowstone County, i n a workmen's compensation matter. It appears t h a t claimant sustained a compensable i n j u r y ; h i s medical b i l l s were paid and he received temporary t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s f o r a s h o r t period of t i m e and then returned t o work. The only i s s u e on appeal i s whether o r not claimant suffered a l o s s of earning capacity on t h e open labor market and i s e n t i t l e d t o be f u r t h e r compensated. The matter was heard by t h e Workmen's Compensation Divi- s i o n and t h e hearings o f f i c e r ruled t h e claimant w a s e n t i t l e d t o medical b e n e f i t s , nominal d i s a b i l i t y indemnity award, and f u r t h e r provided t h a t since h i s capacity t o earn wages had not y e t been diminished t h e case would remain under t h e continuing j u r i s d i c - t i o n of t h e Workmen's Compensation Division. An a p p l i c a t i o n f o r rehearing w a s f i l e d , denied, and an appeal was taken t o t h e d i s - t r i c t court. I n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t h e matter was submitted upon t h e evidence taken before t h e hearings o f f i c e r and t h e r e a f t e r an order was entered denying t h e r e l i e f sought; t h i s appeal followed. It is conceded t h a t claimant Ronshaugen i s now employed i n t h e same capacity he was before t h e i n j u r y and h i s present earnings a r e higher than they were before t h e injury. However, it i s h i s contention t h a t he has maintained t h i s employment only because of t h e g r a t u i t o u s a s s i s t a n c e of h i s coemployees and t h e indulgence of h i s employer. Ronshaugen relies on I n f e l t v. Horen, 136 Mont. 217, 346 P.2d 556. I n t h a t case t h e employee returned t o work s h o r t l y a f t e r h i s i n j u r y but he was only a b l e t o continue with h i s work by reason of a s s i s t a n c e from h i s fellow workers and h i s brother. H e paid h i s brother $30 per week o u t of h i s averaged earnings of $100 per week, and t h a t f a c t was taken i n t o consideration by t h i s Court i n sustaining an award. This is c l e a r l y distinguishable from t h e f a c t s i n t h i s case. W e observe no e r r o r on t h e p a r t of t h e Workmen's Com- pensation Division o r t h e d i s t r i c t court. The appellant urges t h a t even though t h e r e has been no pecuniary l o s s r e s u l t i n g from t h e i n j u r y , t h a t he has shown a l o s s of a b i l i t y t o earn i n t h e open labor market. (Shaffer v. Midland Empire Pack. Co., 127 Mont. 211, 259 P.2d 3 4 0 ) I n t h i s cause t h e awarding of nominal d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s and r e t a i n i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n i n t h e event t h e r e should be a subsequent l o s s of earning capacity was t h e proper way f o r t h e workman -W- be protected and t h e , b r d e r of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t is affirmed, Chief J u s t i c e J u s t i c e s