Colorado Revised Statutes
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-42-108 (2026)
Disfigurement - additional compensation
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(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.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1997–2022 · leading case: Gonzales v. Advanced Component Sys., 949 P.2d 569 (Colo. 1997).
Gonzales v. Advanced Component Sys., 949 P.2d 569 (Colo. 1997). “1996), in which the court of appeals held that an ocular disfigurement is not a medical impairment and can only be compensated as a cosmetic disfigurement under section 8-42-108, 3B C.R.S. (1996 Supp.).”
Zerba v. Dillon Companies, 292 P.3d 1051 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012). “After reviewing the applicable statutes and case law, the administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that King Soopers was entitled to an offset of Zerba's SSA benefits, but that section 8-42-108(1)(c)(IL.5) did not provide for an offset of Zerba's military retirement benefits…”
Colorado Comp. Ins. Auth. v. Jones, 131 P.3d 1074 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005). “Section 8-42-108, C.R.S.2004. Therefore, we conclude that the General Assembly, prior to the amendment of § 8-41-203 in 2003, did not intend to include physical impairment or disfigurement damages recovered by an employee within the general category of economic damages subject…”
Advanced Component Sys. v. Gonzales, 935 P.2d 24 (Colo. Ct. App. 1997). “) so as to authorize an award of benefits under that statute, rather than under § 8-42-108, C.R.S. (1995 Cum.Supp.). Because we conclude that such disfigurement is not a medical impairment under the pertinent statute, we set aside the order of the Panel and remand the cause for…”
Anderson v. Longmont Toyota, Inc., 102 P.3d 323 (Colo. 2004). “Unlike the majority, I do not believe the history of sections 8-42-108(1)(g) and - 105(4), C.R.”
Leffler v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 252 P.3d 50 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010). “Glen Leffler, doing business as Skyline Sod, and his insurer, Pinnacol Assurance (collectively employer), appeal an order of the Industrial Claim Appeals Office of Colorado (Panel) awarding Daniel Lewis (claimant) $4800 pursuant to section 8-42-108(2)(c), C.R.S.2009, for…”
Calvert v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 155 P.3d 474 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006). “Claimant points to § 8-42-108(1), C.R.S. 2005, which provides that whenever an "injury or occupational disease causes disability, a disability indemnity shall be payable as wages," and argues that he became entitled to disability benefits anew when he underwent surgery.”
Sears v. Penrose Hosp., 942 P.2d 1345 (Colo. Ct. App. 1997). “Cf § 8-42-108, C.R.S. (1996 Cum.Supp.) (compensation for disfigurement is “in addition to all other compensation benefits provided in” article 42).”
Simpson v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 219 P.3d 354 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009). “He contends that the statutory definition of overpayment specifically refers only to offsets that are defined in section 8-42-108, C.R.S.2008. We disagree.”
Gilmore v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 187 P.3d 1129 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008). “"In cases where it is determined that a temporarily disabled employee is responsible for termination of employment, the resulting wage loss shall not be attributable to the on-the-job injury.”
Loofbourrow v. Indus. Claims Appeals Off. of State, 321 P.3d 548 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011). “See § 8-42-108(1), C.R.S.2011; Liberty Heights at Northgate v.”
Liberty Heights at Northgate v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 30 P.3d 872 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001). “See § 8-42-108(1), C.R.S.2000. Under current law, when a temporarily disabled claimant is responsible for termination of employment, the resulting wage loss may not be attributed to the work injury.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-42-108(1) — 4 cases
Calvert v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 155 P.3d 474 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006). “Claimant points to § 8-42-108(1), C.R.S. 2005, which provides that whenever an "injury or occupational disease causes disability, a disability indemnity shall be payable as wages," and argues that he became entitled to disability benefits anew when he underwent surgery.”
Loofbourrow v. Indus. Claims Appeals Off. of State, 321 P.3d 548 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011). “See § 8-42-108(1), C.R.S.2011; Liberty Heights at Northgate v.”
Liberty Heights at Northgate v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 30 P.3d 872 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001). “See § 8-42-108(1), C.R.S.2000. Under current law, when a temporarily disabled claimant is responsible for termination of employment, the resulting wage loss may not be attributed to the work injury.”
Colorado Comp. Ins. Auth. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off. of the State, 18 P.3d 790 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-42-108(1)(a) — 1 case
Harman-Bergstedt, Inc. v. Loofbourrow, 320 P.3d 327 (Colo. 2014).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-42-108(1)(c) — 1 case
Zerba v. Dillon Companies, 292 P.3d 1051 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012). “After reviewing the applicable statutes and case law, the administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that King Soopers was entitled to an offset of Zerba's SSA benefits, but that section 8-42-108(1)(c)(IL.5) did not provide for an offset of Zerba's military retirement benefits…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-42-108(1)(c)(I) — 1 case
Zerba v. Dillon Companies, 292 P.3d 1051 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012). “After reviewing the applicable statutes and case law, the administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that King Soopers was entitled to an offset of Zerba's SSA benefits, but that section 8-42-108(1)(c)(IL.5) did not provide for an offset of Zerba's military retirement benefits…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-42-108(1)(c)(I1) — 1 case
Zerba v. Dillon Companies, 292 P.3d 1051 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012). “After reviewing the applicable statutes and case law, the administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that King Soopers was entitled to an offset of Zerba's SSA benefits, but that section 8-42-108(1)(c)(IL.5) did not provide for an offset of Zerba's military retirement benefits…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-42-108(1)(c)(ID) — 1 case
Zerba v. Dillon Companies, 292 P.3d 1051 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012). “After reviewing the applicable statutes and case law, the administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that King Soopers was entitled to an offset of Zerba's SSA benefits, but that section 8-42-108(1)(c)(IL.5) did not provide for an offset of Zerba's military retirement benefits…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-42-108(1)(c)(II) — 1 case
Zerba v. Dillon Companies, 292 P.3d 1051 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012). “After reviewing the applicable statutes and case law, the administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that King Soopers was entitled to an offset of Zerba's SSA benefits, but that section 8-42-108(1)(c)(IL.5) did not provide for an offset of Zerba's military retirement benefits…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-42-108(1)(c)(IL5) — 1 case
Zerba v. Dillon Companies, 292 P.3d 1051 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012). “After reviewing the applicable statutes and case law, the administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that King Soopers was entitled to an offset of Zerba's SSA benefits, but that section 8-42-108(1)(c)(IL.5) did not provide for an offset of Zerba's military retirement benefits…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-42-108(1)(g) — 4 cases
Anderson v. Longmont Toyota, Inc., 102 P.3d 323 (Colo. 2004). “Unlike the majority, I do not believe the history of sections 8-42-108(1)(g) and - 105(4), C.R.”
Gilmore v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 187 P.3d 1129 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008). “"In cases where it is determined that a temporarily disabled employee is responsible for termination of employment, the resulting wage loss shall not be attributable to the on-the-job injury.”
Liberty Heights at Northgate v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 30 P.3d 872 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001). “See § 8-42-108(1), C.R.S.2000. Under current law, when a temporarily disabled claimant is responsible for termination of employment, the resulting wage loss may not be attributed to the work injury.”
Apex Transp., Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 321 P.3d 630 (Colo. Ct. App. 2014).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-42-108(2)(c) — 1 case
Leffler v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 252 P.3d 50 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010). “Glen Leffler, doing business as Skyline Sod, and his insurer, Pinnacol Assurance (collectively employer), appeal an order of the Industrial Claim Appeals Office of Colorado (Panel) awarding Daniel Lewis (claimant) $4800 pursuant to section 8-42-108(2)(c), C.R.S.2009, for…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.