Case ID: so2d_414/html/0017-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. MILLS, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

RAMER’S FEED INC., and Florida Farm Bureau Insurance Co., Appellants, v. Benjamin Howard FLEIG, Deceased, Helen LaVicka, Mother & Dependent, Appellee.
    No. AF-331.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 12, 1982.
    Rehearing Denied June 7, 1982.
    
      Bernard F. Grail, Jr., of Grail, Saliba & McDonough, Vero Beach, for appellants.
    Thomas Cassidy of Stanley, Wines & Smith, P. A., Lakeland, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

The employer/carrier appeals an order finding that the claimant mother was a dependent of her son, who lived apart from his widowed mother and died in a compen-sable accident. There was evidence that the deceased son regularly contributed $107.00 per month to claimant and that two other children of the claimant contributed a like sum. These contributions, along with social security of approximately $200.00 per month, constituted claimant’s only income. There was also evidence that claimant, who is sixty-nine years old, suffers from a variety of illnesses and has been unable to work for a number of years. Applying the criteria of Panama City Stevedoring Co., Inc. v. Padgett, 149 Fla. 687, 6 So.2d 822 (1942) and MacDon Lumber Co. v. Stevenson, 117 So.2d 487 (Fla.1960), we see no error in the deputy’s finding of dependency.

AFFIRMED.

LARRY G. SMITH and SHAW, JJ., concur.

MILLS, J., dissents with opinion.

MILLS, Judge,

dissenting.

I dissent.

Mrs. LaVicka received $821 monthly support. Social security contributed $200; a son contributed $107 plus a rent-free apartment valued at $300; a daughter contributed $107; and the deceased son contributed $107. The contribution of the deceased son amounted to 13% of the mother’s support.

The deputy’s finding of dependency was not supported by competent substantial evidence. The contribution of the deceased son was not substantial, rather, it was nominal. Mrs. LaVicka testified that her standard of living had not declined since she lost the support of her deceased son.

Under the criteria of MacDon Lumber Co. v. Stevenson, 117 So.2d 487 (Fla.1960), this claim should have been dismissed because Mrs. LaVicka failed to prove that substantial contributions were made by her son that enabled her to maintain her accustomed standard of living.