RONSHAUGEN v RAMSEY ENGINEERING CO

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12790 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O M N A A F OTN 1975 ROBERT A. RONSHAUGEN, P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , -vs - RAMSEY ENGINEERING CO. e t a l . , Employer, and NATIONAL BEN FRANKLIN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f the T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Hon. R o b e r t H. Wilson, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record : For Appellant : Lee O v e r f e l d t a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana F o r Respondent: P e d e r s e n and Herndon, B i l l i n g s , Montana Donald R. Herndon a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted: Decided: J a n u a r y 22, 1975 6.E'B 14 1975 Chief J u s t i c e James T . H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court. Mr. T h i s i s an a p p e a l 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 m a t t e r . It appears t h a t c l a i m a n t s u s t a i n e d a compensable i n j u r y ; h i s m e d i c a l b i l l s were p a i d and he r e c e i v e d 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 p e r i o d of t i m e and t h e n r e t u r n e d t o work. The o n l y i s s u e on a p p e a l i s whether o r n o t c l a i m a n t s u f f e r e d a l o s s of e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y on t h e open l a b o r market and i s e n t i t l e d t o be f u r t h e r compensated. The m a t t e r was h e a r d by t h e Workmen's Compensation D i v i s i o n and t h e h e a r i n g s o f f i c e r r u l e d t h e c l a i m a n t w a s e n t i t l e d t o m e d i c a l b e n e f i t s , nominal d i s a b i l i t y i n d e m n i t y award, and f u r t h e r p r o v i d e d t h a t s i n c e h i s c a p a c i t y t o e a r n wages had n o t y e t been d i m i n i s h e d t h e c a s e would remain under t h e c o n t i n u i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e Workmen's Compensation D i v i s i o n . An a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g w a s f i l e d , d e n i e d , and a n a p p e a l was t a k e n 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 m a t t e r was s u b m i t t e d upon t h e e v i d e n c e t a k e n b e f o r e t h e h e a r i n g s o f f i c e r and t h e r e a f t e r a n o r d e r was e n t e r e d d e n y i n g t h e r e l i e f s o u g h t ; t h i s a p p e a l f o l l o w e d . I t i s conceded t h a t c l a i m a n t Ronshaugen i s now employed i n t h e same c a p a c i t y he was b e f o r e t h e i n j u r y and h i s p r e s e n t e a r n i n g s a r e h i g h e r t h a n t h e y were b e f o r e t h e i n j u r y . However, i t i s h i s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t he h a s m a i n t a i n e d t h i s employment o n l y b e c a u s e 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 i n d u l g e n c e of h i s employer. Ronshaugen r e l i e s on I n f e l t v . Horen, 136 Mont. 217, 3 4 6 P.2d 556. I n t h a t c a s e t h e employee r e t u r n e d t o work s h o r t l y a f t e r h i s i n j u r y b u t he was o n l y a b l e t o c o n t i n u e w i t h h i s work by r e a s o n of a s s i s t a n c e from h i s f e l l o w workers and h i s b r o t h e r . H e p a i d h i s b r o t h e r $30 p e r week o u t of h i s a v e r a g e d e a r n i n g s of $100 p e r week, and t h a t f a c t was t a k e n i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n by t h i s C o u r t i n s u s t a i n i n g a n award. This i s c l e a r l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from t h e f a c t s i n t h i s c a s e . W o b s e r v e no e r r o r on t h e p a r t o f t h e Workmen's Come pensation Division o r t h e d i s t r i c t court. The a p p e l l a n t u r g e s t h a t even though t h e r e h a s been no p e c u n i a r y 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 h a s shown a l o s s of a b i l i t y t o e a r n i n t h e open l a b o r market. ( S h a f f e r v. Midland Empire Pack. Co., 127 Mont. 211, 259 P.2d 3 4 0 ) I n t h i s c a u s e 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 e v e n t t h e r e s h o u l d be a s u b s e q u e n t l o s s of e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y was t h e p r o p e r way f o r t h e workman -W-be p r o t e c t e d and t h e , b r d e r o f t h e d i s t r i c t court is affirmed, Chief J u s t i c e Justices

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.