Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-524 (2020)
Compensation for disability — Disfigurement
- The Workers' Compensation Commission shall award compensation for serious and permanent facial or head disfigurement in a sum not to exceed three thousand five hundred dollars ($3,500).
- No award for disfigurement shall be entered until twelve (12) months after the injury.
History. Init. Meas. 1948, No. 4, § 13, Acts 1949, p. 1420; Init. Meas. 1956, No. 1, § 2, Acts 1957; Acts 1959, No. 144, § 1; Init. Meas. 1968, No. 1, §§ 2, 3, Acts 1969; 1975 (Extended Sess., 1976), No. 1227, §§ 8-10; 1979, No. 253, § 4; 1981, No. 290, § 4; A.S.A. 1947, § 81-1313.
Research References
ALR.
Validity, Construction, and Application of State Workers’ Compensation Laws Specifically Providing for Facial Disfigurement. 11 A.L.R.7th Art. 7 (2015).
Ark. L. Rev.
Workmen's Compensation — Disfigurement of Face or Head — Proof of Impaired Earning Capacity as a Prerequisite, 16 Ark. L. Rev. 314.
Case Notes
Compensable Disfigurement.
The only compensable disfigurement is one that affects earning capacity in a similar employment. Long-Bell Lumber Co. v. Mitchell, 206 Ark. 854, 177 S.W.2d 920 (1944) (decision under prior law).
Evidence supported commission's finding that injury would not affect his ability to secure employment and did not result in facial disfigurement. Long-Bell Lumber Co. v. Mitchell, 206 Ark. 854, 177 S.W.2d 920 (1944) (decision under prior law).
Compensation denied where there was no evidence that claimant had been refused employment or that his disfigurement would cause any refusal in the future of employment similar to that engaged in at the time injury was received. Jolly v. J.M. Hampton & Sons Lumber Co., 234 Ark. 574, 353 S.W.2d 338 (1962).
In a workers' compensation case, employee sustained a compensable injury when ceramic glaze splashed into his eye while he was teaching an art class; further, employee was entitled to $3000 for his facial disfigurement as the judge found that his eye was watery looking, red, and had a permanently dilated pupil that detracted from the employee's appearance. Fayetteville Sch. Dist. v. Kunzelman, 93 Ark. App. 160, 217 S.W.3d 149 (2005).
Compensation.
Employees of cleaning establishment who worked for the most part at a ranch owned by insured which was maintained primarily for advertising value were entitled to compensation. Great Am. Indem. Co. v. Bailey, 221 Ark. 469, 254 S.W.2d 322 (1953).
If claimant would have been able to work longer if his injuries had not occurred he is entitled to compensation. Minor v. Poinsett Lumber & Mfg. Co., 235 Ark. 195, 357 S.W.2d 504 (1962).
The term compensation as used in this section refers to money benefits paid to the injured employee for disability. Brooks v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., 247 Ark. 61, 444 S.W.2d 246 (1969).
Where the claimant sustained a compensable injury while working at one job, his compensation benefits were properly based on wages from that job rather than on the combined incomes of that job and another held by claimant. Hart's Exxon Serv. Station v. Prater, 268 Ark. 961, 597 S.W.2d 130 (Ct. App. 1980).
Evidence.
Commission properly refused to accept proffered evidence of witness as to the effect of claimant's disfigurement on his employment as witness possessed no particular qualifications for determining likelihood of claimant's being refused employment. Jolly v. J.M. Hampton & Sons Lumber Co., 234 Ark. 574, 353 S.W.2d 338 (1962).
Time for Award.
It was the legislative intent that the Workers' Compensation Commission should defer a final disfigurement award until completion of claimant's plastic surgery or until the claimant elects to forego surgery. Bates Reel Co. v. Breashears, 263 Ark. 919, 567 S.W.2d 959 (1978).
Cited: Lion Oil Co. v. Reeves, 221 Ark. 5, 254 S.W.2d 450 (1952); McGehee Hatchery Co. v. Gunter, 234 Ark. 113, 350 S.W.2d 608 (1961); Abbott v. C. H. Leavell & Co., 244 Ark. 544, 426 S.W.2d 166 (1968); Bibler Bros. Lumber Co. v. Allen, 251 Ark. 593, 474 S.W.2d 116 (1971); Oak Lawn Farms v. Payne, 251 Ark. 674, 474 S.W.2d 408 (1971); Coleman's Bar-B-Que v. Fuller, 262 Ark. 645, 559 S.W.2d 714 (1978); Randall, Burkart/Randall Div. of Textron, Inc. v. Daniels, 266 Ark. 1060, 599 S.W.2d 392 (1979); Model Laundry & Dry Cleaning v. Simmons, 268 Ark. 770, 596 S.W.2d 337 (Ct. App. 1980); Weeks v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 270 Ark. 151, 604 S.W.2d 566 (1980); Hammer v. Intermed N.W., 270 Ark. 262, 603 S.W.2d 913 (1980); Midwest Steel Co. v. Mulanax, 270 Ark. 914, 606 S.W.2d 606 (1980); Mountain Valley Superette, Inc. v. Bottorff, 4 Ark. App. 251, 629 S.W.2d 320 (1982); Vann v. Dow Chem. Co., 561 F. Supp. 141 (W.D. Ark. 1983); Crain Burton Ford Co. v. Rogers, 12 Ark. App. 246, 674 S.W.2d 944 (1984); C.J. Horner Co. v. Stringfellow, 14 Ark. App. 138, 685 S.W.2d 533 (1985); Gerber Prods. v. McDonald, 15 Ark. App. 226, 691 S.W.2d 879 (1985); Franklin Collier Farms v. Chapple, 18 Ark. App. 200, 712 S.W.2d 334 (1986); General Indus. v. Gibson, 22 Ark. App. 217, 738 S.W.2d 104 (1987); Cheshire v. Foam Molding Co., 37 Ark. App. 78, 822 S.W.2d 412 (1992).