Court Opinion

ID: 9648168
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:06:52.540326+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:56.773286
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Ervin, P. J.:
I concur in the result reached by the majority in this case because of the finding by the referee and affirmed by the board “that the claimant and decedent *534continued to cohabit as man and wife on weekends to the time of the decedent’s death.”
I do not agree with the majority, however, that the claimant was receiving from the decedent at the time of his death “a substantial portion of her support.” (Emphasis supplied) In Carter v. Vecchione, 183 Pa. Superior Ct. 595, 133 A. 2d 297, I considered the language of the 1939 amendment to the Workmen’s Compensation Act (Act of June 21, 1939, P. L. 520, §1, 77 PS §562), wherein it was made mandatory that the claimant must be “receiving from him a substantial portion of her support.” I also quoted from Webster’s New International Dictionary, Second Edition, Unabridged, the language to show the meaning of the word “substantial.” See also my dissenting opinion in Walker v. Aluminum Co. of America, 185 Pa. Superior Ct. 355, at page 360, 138 A. 2d 197. What I then said in those opinions I believe would be applicable to the present case were it not for the fact that the record indicates that the claimant continued to live and cohabit with the decedent up to the time of his death.
Montgomery, J., joins in this opinion.