Court Opinion

ID: 9582167
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:23:18.784392+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:30.113720
License: Public Domain

*7Banke, Judge,
dissenting.
I am in full agreement with all that is said in Division 1 of the majority opinion but dissent to the holding in Division 2 that the appellee, Harriet D. Holtzclaw, is not entitled to benefits. As stated in the majority opinion, it is undisputed that Harriet was in fact living with the decedent and was completely dependent on him at the time of his death. It is also undisputed that she married him in good faith, not learning of his prior undissolved marriage to Patricia until after his death. Under these circumstances, there is neither any reason nor any authority for denying her benefits. Code Ann. § 114-414 clearly provides that persons other than spouses or children may be considered dependents if their actual dependency is shown by the evidence. In Insurance Co. of N. A. v. Jewel, 118 Ga. App. 599 (164 SE2d 846) (1968), this court reviewed various cases from other states with similar statutory provisions and found that "where the claimant has in good faith entered into a ceremonial marriage with the employee, the courts have generally held the claimant to be entitled to an award based on dependency. [Cits].” Accord, 2 Larson, Law of Workmen’s Compensation, § 63.42 (1976).
By denying benefits to Harriet, the majority has gone against the weight of authority while serving no apparent beneficial purpose. Had Patricia’s potential right to recover as the decedent’s lawful widow not terminated immediately after his death, the situation might be different, for then it could at least be argued that the spouse category was already filled. However, since Patricia is not entitled to receive benefits as the decedent’s actual widow, why not allow Harriet’s claim based on her actual dependency and her good faith marriage to the decedent? The majority does not answer this question, and in my opinion, its ruling in Division 2 needlessly frustrates the "spirit and purpose of the Act which is 'to alleviate human suffering and to contribute to human need when accidental injury is suffered...’ Lumbermen’s Mut. Cas. Co. v. Griggs, 190 Ga. 277, 288 (9 SE2d 84).” Gibbons v. Atlantic Steel Co., 124 Ga. App. 71, 72 (183 SE2d 212) (1971).
I would affirm the judgment of the trial court in its entirety.