What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to issues that may appear in civil law issues involving government actors. The issue is: "Did the court conclude that it should defer to agency discretion? For example, if the action was committed to agency discretion. Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed".

Opinion:
POCAHONTAS FUEL CO., Inc., et al. v. MONAHAN, Deputy Commissioner, et al.
No. 2435.
Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
May 17, 1930.
William B. Mahoney, of Portland, Me., for appellants.
Edward J. Harrigan, of Portland, Me., for interveners.
Frederick R. Dyer, U. S; Atty., and William D. Nulty and William W. Gallagher, Asst. U. S. Attys., all of Portland, Me., for Deputy Commissioner.
Before BINGHAM, ANDERSON, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
ANDERSON, Circuit Judge.
This is a bill in equity brought under section 21 of the Longshoremen and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act of March 4, 1927, 44 Stat. 1436 (33 USCA § 921), to set aside an award of compensation made by the Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of that act.
John King, a longshoreman, died on September 13, 1928, as a result of an accident suffered in the course of his employment. On due proceedings, the Deputy Commissioner awarded, on the basis of the decedent’s average weekly wage of $27, to his father, Michael, and to his mother, Margaret, $6.75 per week each, and to his minor sister, Anna (born September 5, 1913) $4.05. The decedent’s employer and its insurance company thereupon brought proceedings to set aside the award. The beneficiaries intervened, and on full hearing the court below ordered the bill dismissed with costs August 3,1929; the main contention then was of inadequate evidence to establish the fact of injury in the course of his employment. On application of the plaintiffs, the court reconsidered the question of dependency, and in a careful opinion affirmed its former conclusion October 9, 1929. The sole question presented on this appeal is that of dependency.
The facts are practically undisputed. The King family consisted of a father, 67 years old, and four children, including the 'deceased. Two of the children were at work, and paying board at $5 and $7 a week, respectively, to their mother. The father worked more or less, and contributed to the family purse perhaps $16 a week on an average.' The mother was treasurer or business. manager of the family, paid the rent, $30 a month, $5 a week for insurance, and did the marketing. The decedent turned over to his mother about $20 a week which, with the father’s earnings of about $16, and assuming that the two children at work paid the full cost of their hoard, left for the four other members of the family, after the payment of the rent and the insurance, about $24 a, week. Without any compensation, this would bo reduced to about $4 a week for the support of the father, mother, and minor daughter.
This, in outline, was the evidence on dependency. The appellants’ contention is that the finding of the Deputy Commissioner, affirmed by the court below, is unwarranted, as matter of law.
Appellants’ learned counsel concede that the finding of the Commissioner is conclusive, if there is any evidence to support it. By section 23 ( 33 USCA § 923) it is provided that the Deputy Commissioner shall not he bound by the rules of evidence, hut may make such investigation and inquiry as ho thinks necessary for the speedy determination of the rights of the parties.
Both on principle and on the weight of authority we think the court below was right in sustaining the finding of the Deputy Commissioner. The legal duty of the surviving father was to support his wife and minor child. The act does not require entire dependency ; partial dependency is enough. It is indisputable that without the wages of the dead son (or compensation approximating his contribution) the family would bo reduced to a state of pinching poverty. The act is, of course, remedial and entitled'to a liberal construction.
We do not regard the fact that the father was possibly earning sufficient money to support himself alone as the test of his dependency. It was as much his legal duty to support his wife and minor child as to support himself. If his earnings were inadequate for that threefold burden, there was partial dependency by him and the other two dependents, as the Deputy Commissioner held.
While the eases of Klein v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 188 App. Div. 509, 177 N. Y. S. 67, and Frear v. Ells, 200 App. Div. 239, 193 N. Y. S. 324, lend some support to the appellants’ eontenüon, the weight of authority is against this construction of the act. See Conners v. Public Service Electric Co., 89 N. J. Law, 99, 97 A. 792; Walz v. Holbrook, Cabot & Rollins Corp., 170 App. Div. 6, 155 N. Y. S. 703; Fennimore et al. v. Pittsburg-Scammon Coal Co., 100 Kan. 372, 164 S. W. 265; Clover Fork Coal Co. v. Ayres, 219 Ky. 326, 292 S. W. 803; Ex parte Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co., 212 Ala. 3, 101 So. 608; In re Peters, 65 Ind. App. 174, 116 N. E. 848; Hamilton v. Texas Co., 151 La. 692, 92 So. 301.
We think the award of the Deputy Commissioner and the decisions last cited a,re more in harmony with the spirit of the act than the two New York eases on which appellants rely.
The decrees of the) District Court are affirmed, with costs of appeal to the interveners.

Question: Did the court conclude that it should defer to agency discretion? For example, if the action was committed to agency discretion.

Choices:
No
Yes
Mixed answer
Issue not discussed

Answer: 1