Court Opinion

ID: 9526405
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:16:56.324966+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:19:42.674744
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
Pfaff, J.
I can not agree with the majority opinion. It is true that the appellee has failed to file a brief but she did appear- before this court by counsel and personally argued her contentions, one of which was that, notwithstanding the fact that the decedent left no dependents as defined by §40-1401 and §40-1403, Burns’ 1952 Repl., the Industrial Board had the authority to make an award to the administratrix of the dependent under §40-1701, Burns’ 1957 Repl. I believe this to be *134sound reasoning. The opinion recites the above quoted sections, except §40-1701, and no mention is made of it except to say that the appellee relies upon it and that this court cannot agree with this position.
I am firmly of the belief that all sections of the Workmen’s Compensation Act must be read together and in doing so we go to the definition of “employee” as defined by §40-1701, which reads, in part, as follows:
“(b) The term ‘employee,’ as used in this act, .... Any reference to an employee who has been injured shall, when the employee is dead, also include Ms legal representatives, dependents and other persons to whom compensation may be payable.....” (Our emphasis)
To deny this appellee compensation, as does this opinion of the court, would, it seems to me, eventually lead to procrastination on the part of the employer to settle or bring to issue all compensation claims against them, upon the supposition that some fatality may befall the employee prior to an award.
I therefore conclude that, in my opinion, the finding of the Full Industrial Board should be affirmed.
Note. — Reported in 146 N. E. 2d 557.