531 P.2d 1348 | Mont. | 1975
delivered the Opinion of the Court.
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 Bonshaugen 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 co-employees and the indulgence of his employer.
Bonshaugen relies on Infelt & 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;