No. 12790 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1975 

ROBERT A. RONSHAUGEN, 

Plaintiff and Appellant, 

-vs - 

RAMSEY ENGINEERING CO. et al., 

Employer, 

and 

NATIONAL BEN FRANKLIN INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendant and Respondent. 

Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, 

Hon. Robert H. Wilson, Judge presiding. 

Counsel of Record : 

For Appellant : 

Lee Overfeldt argued, Billings, Montana 

For Respondent: 

Pedersen and Herndon, Billings, Montana 

Donald R. Herndon argued, Billings, Montana 

Submitted: January 22, 1975 

Decided: 6.E'B 1 4 1975 
Mr. Chief Justice James T. Harrison delivered the Opinion of 

the Court. 

This is an appeal from the district court, Yellowstone 

County, in a workmen's compensation matter. It appears that 

claimant sustained a compensable injury; his medical bills were 

paid and he received temporary total disability benefits for a 

short period of time and then returned to work. The only issue 

on appeal is whether or not claimant suffered a loss of earning 

capacity on the open labor market and is entitled to be further 

compensated. 

The matter was heard by the Workmen's Compensation Division and the hearings officer ruled the claimant was entitled to 

medical benefits, nominal disability indemnity award, and further 

provided that since his capacity to earn wages had not yet been 

diminished the case would remain under the continuing jurisdiction of the Workmen's Compensation Division. An application for 

rehearing was filed, denied, and an appeal was taken to the district court. In the district court the matter was submitted upon 

the evidence taken before the hearings officer and thereafter an 

order was entered denying the relief sought; this appeal followed. 

It is conceded that claimant Ronshaugen is now employed 

in the same capacity he was before the injury and his present 

earnings are higher than they were before the injury. However, 

it is his contention that he has maintained this employment only 

because of the gratuitous assistance of his coemployees and the 

indulgence of his employer. 

Ronshaugen relies on Infelt v. Horen, 136 Mont. 217, 346 

P.2d 556. In that case the employee returned to work shortly 

after his injury but he was only able to continue with his work 

by reason of assistance from his fellow workers and his brother. 

He paid his brother $30 per week out of his averaged earnings of 

$100 per week, and that fact was taken into consideration by this 
Court in sustaining an award. This is clearly distinguishable 

from the facts in this case. 

We observe no error on the part of the Workmen's Compensation Division or the district court. The appellant urges 

that even though there has been no pecuniary loss resulting 

from the injury, that he has shown a loss of ability to earn in 

the open labor market. (Shaffer v. Midland Empire Pack. Co., 

127 Mont. 211, 259 P.2d 340) In this cause the awarding of nominal 

disability benefits and retaining jurisdiction in the event 

there should be a subsequent loss of earning capacity was the 

proper way for the workman -W- be protected and the,brder of the 

district court is affirmed, 

Chief Justice 

Justices