 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Burgland v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co.11/21/1996
ble" loss of future earning capacity, rather than any "actual" loss of earning capacity. Stuker, 822 P.2d at 107.
Burglund may not have a present physical restriction on his work; however, this does not mean that he will not suffer a possible loss of future earning capacity as a result of his injury . One-half of the twenty percent disability award is represented by the impairment award, which is strictly a medical determination. UPS attacked this medical determination before the Workers' Compensation Court but did not appeal this issue. Given the ten percent impairment rating, the court awarded an additional ten percent for factors other than medical impairment. The court's award of an additional ten percent does not, as a matter of law, require that Burglund be currently physically restricted in either his employment or his recreational activities. It is an award to compensate future possible loss of earning capacity. There is sufficient evidence in the record which supports the court's conclusion that Burglund could possibly be forced to quit his position with UPS and therefore suffer future possible loss of earning capacity.
We therefore determine the Workers' Compensation Court did not err in concluding that Liberty is liable under ยงยง 39-71-705 through -708, MCA (1983), for payment to Burglund of 100 weeks of permanent partial disability benefits, representing a twenty percent disability.
We affirm both issues raised on appeal.
CHIEF JUSTICE TURNAGE, JUSTICES NELSON, GRAY and LEAPHART concur.
|