Court Opinion

ID: 9791055
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:04:23.60476+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:33.633889
License: Public Domain

SPENCE, J.
I concur in the judgment as petitioner’s own testimony showed, as a matter of law, that her dependency was “partial” rather than “entire.” (Lab. Code, §3502.) Accepting petitioner’s testimony as true, the situation “existing at the time of the injury” of the deceased on July 13, 1946, was as follows:
Petitioner was then regularly employed at part-time work earning over $100 per month, which was approximately two-thirds of her living expenses of $155 per month. Deceased had never contributed anything to the support of petitioner *720prior to August, 1945, at which time petitioner ceased working in a defense plant and started to draw unemployment insurance. Thereafter and during the period between August, 1945, and the death of the deceased on July 13, 1946, deceased’s contributions to petitioner’s support averaged $70 per month, which was less than one-half of petitioner’s living expenses.
These admitted facts show a typical case of “partial” dependency as found by the commission, and it seems clear that if a finding of “entire” or “total” dependency had been made, such finding could not have been sustained. (London Guar. etc. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 57 Cal.App.2d 616 [135 P.2d 7]; Tuttle v. Industrial Acc. Com., 31 Cal.App.2d 279 [87 P.2d 881].)
Edmonds, J., concurred.