[1983] Burglund v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 179 Mont. 298, 927 P.2d 1006 (1996) Commonly referenced as "indemnity benefits," benefits available under sections 39-71-705 through -708, MCA (1983) are based on the schedule of injuries set forth in section 39-71-705, MCA (1983). In this case, the back injury is a non-scheduled injury, which allows a maximum of 500 weeks of benefits. To determine an indemnity claim, the Court must consider the claimant's age, education, work experience, pain and disability, actual wage loss, and loss of future earning capacity. Although the WCC did not credit claimant's claims of current physical restrictions, that does not mean he will not suffer a possible loss of future earning capacity as a result of his injury. The Court's award of twenty percent, translating into 100 weeks of benefits, is supported by the record.

[1985] Jones v. Reliance National Indemnity Co. [3/17/99] 1999 MTWCC 22 Claimant, who was scarred by a blow to his face with an air hose, is entitled to compensation for disfigurement under section 39-71-708, MCA (1985). Because that injury caused claimant to lose the ability to smile, a precious part of our individual identities, he is entitled to the full $2,500 available under the statute.

[1983] Burglund v. Liberty Mutual Northwest Ins. Co. [4/10/95] 1995 MTWCC 25A UPS driver is entitled to benefits under sections 39-71-705 through -708, MCA (1983) where those benefits are to indemnify the worker for "possible" loss of future earning capacity. "Indemnity benefits" under those statutes are based on a schedule of injuries set forth in section 39-71-705, MCA (1983). In the case of a non-scheduled injury, such as claimant's back condition the maximum number of weeks of benefits is 500. With reference to the statute's purpose of providing benefits in proportion to the loss, and the factors for consideration (age, education, work experience, pain and disability, actual wage loss, possible loss of future earning capacity), the Court finds an additional ten percent appropriate, which amounts to a total of twenty percent given the ten percent award for impairment already paid. [Note: the WCC was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Burglund v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 179 Mont. 298, 927 P.2d 1006 (1996).]