Colorado § 8-42-108 - Disfigurement - additional compensation.

§ 8-42-108. Disfigurement - additional compensation.

(1) If an employee is seriously, permanently disfigured about the head, face, or parts of the body normally exposed to public view, in addition to all other compensation benefits provided in this article and except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, the director may allow compensation not to exceed four thousand dollars to the employee who suffers such disfigurement.

(2) If an employee sustains any of the following disfigurements, the director may allow up to eight thousand dollars as compensation to the employee in addition to all other compensation benefits provided in this article other than compensation allowed under subsection (1) of this section:

(a) Extensive facial scars or facial burn scars;

(b) Extensive body scars or burn scars; or

(c) Stumps due to loss or partial loss of limbs.

(3) The director shall adjust the limits on the amount of compensation for disfigurement specified in this section on July 1, 2008, and each July 1 thereafter by the percentage of adjustment made by the director to the state average weekly wage pursuant to section 8-47-106.

Source: L. 90: Entire article R&RE, p. 493, § 1, effective July 1. L. 2007: Entire section amended, p. 640, § 2, effective July 1.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 8-51-105 as it existed prior to 1990.

Cross references: For the legislative declaration contained in the 2007 act amending this section, see section 1 of chapter 174, Session Laws of Colorado 2007.

ANNOTATION

Law reviews. For article, "Primer on Permanent Disability in the Colorado Workmen's Compensation Law", see 57 Den. L.J. 573 (1980).

Annotator's note. Since § 8-42-108 is similar to § 8-51-105 as it existed prior to the 1990 repeal and reenactment of the "Workers' Compensation Act of Colorado", articles 40 to 47 of this title, relevant cases construing that provision have been included in the annotations to this section.

Remedy under this section is not exclusive and an individual who suffers a cosmetic deformity to the face can receive benefits under both this section and § 8-42-107 because such a deformity can be classified as a functional medical impairment and rated accordingly. Gonzales v. Advanced Component Sys., 949 P.2d 569 (Colo. 1997).

The term "public", as used in this section, means accessible to or shared by all members of the community. Twilight Jones Lounge v. Showers, 732 P.2d 1230 (Colo. App. 1986).

A disfigurement is an observable impairment of the natural appearance of a person. Arkin v. Indus. Comm'n, 145 Colo. 463, 358 P.2d 879 (1961).

And the loss of three upper front teeth is a disfigurement for which the workmen's compensation act provides compensation. Arkin v. Indus. Comm'n, 145 Colo. 463, 358 P.2d 879 (1961).

Furthermore, a claimant's resort to an artificial device to mask the blemish does not alter the fact of disfigurement. Arkin v. Indus. Comm'n, 145 Colo. 463, 358 P.2d 879 (1961).

Disfigurement award for scar on abdominal area was proper as the abdominal area is a part of the body normally exposed to public view. Twilight Jones Lounge v. Showers, 732 P.2d 1230 (Colo. App. 1986).

Fingers are distal extensions of the upper limb; therefore, the stump of a partially amputated finger constitutes a disfigurement under this section. Leffler v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 252 P.3d 50 (Colo. App. 2010).

The earning capacity principle is of no great significance where disfigurement results from an injury. The very meagerness of the ultimate award allowable for head or facial disfigurement compels the construction that the right to compensation for serious head or facial disfigurement is not dependent on diminution of earning capacity. Arkin v. Indus. Comm'n, 145 Colo. 463, 358 P.2d 879 (1961).

The method of determining disability provided by § 8-51-108 cannot be used when the injury is one appearing in §§ 8-51-104 to 8-51-107 inclusive, because by its specific terms such injuries are excluded. Hawkeye-Security Ins. Co. v. Tupper, 152 Colo. 12, 380 P.2d 31 (1963).