Court Opinion

ID: 9601260
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:40:49.302182+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:20:24.763416
License: Public Domain

HALLEY, V. C.J., and O’NEAL, J.,
file their joint dissent as follows:
We would like to concur in an opinion to sustain House Bill 312 of the 1951 Legislature if we conscientiously could. Sec. 1, par. 1 of the Act is as ■ follows:
“The term ‘Dependent’ or ‘Dependents’, as used in this Act, shall mean and include the heirs at law of the deceased, as defined by the Descent and Distribution Statutes of Oklahoma.”
Sec. 4 is as follows:
“Section 22, Title 85, Oklahoma Statutes 1941, is hereby amended by adding thereto a new numbered paragraph to read as follows:
“ 7. If the injury causes death within two (2) years from the date of the accident, or if the injury causes continuous disability and causes death within five (5) years from the date of accident, notice, of which was given as provided in this Act, compensation shall be payable in the amount of Thirteen Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($13,500.00) and to the dependents of the deceased employee as defined herein. ”
Under these provisions the death benefit is payable to the dependents of the deceased employee, and “dependents” are defined by the Act as his heirs at law. It is conceded that the Act, wherein it gives the benefits to persons who are not dependents, is unconstitutional. When the Legislature has positively designated who shall be dependents, we have no right to limit or expand that group. This court should not construe an Act as we think it should have been written, but we must interpret it as- it actually was written. The Legislature might have different views from the court as to who should be classed as dependents. This legislation is of such importance that we believe the Legislature should start over and write an Act that is constitutional.
We dissent.