Court Opinion

ID: 9588009
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:28:50.831049+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:40:57.004945
License: Public Domain

Justice Mitchell
dissenting.
The interpretation of G.S. 97-38 applied by the majority in the present case will clearly cause the amount of total death benefits payable to workers’ dependents to vary wildly from case to case upon no basis other than the number and ages of worker’s wholly dependent survivors. Unlike the majority, I do not believe that such results are “inherent in the variety of life itself, and . . . do not strictly spring from the operation of G.S. 97-38.”
A comparison of two hypothetical situations involving the death of the same worker is sufficient to reveal the inequitable results which will certainly arise from the application of the ma*283jority’s interpretation of the statute. If the worker in the hypothetical case made $270 per week immediately prior to his death, the “total compensation award” or maximum yearly compensation available to his dependents would be 6673 percent of this amount or $180 per week without regard to the number of persons wholly dependent upon him at the time of his death. G.S. 97-29; G.S. 97-38. If the hypothetical worker happened to be a widower survived only by one wholly dependent person, a small child one year of age, the weekly benefit of $180 would be paid to that child alone until he reached 18 years of age. When the child reached the age of 18 years, the compensation paid at $180 per week for 17 years would amount to a total of $159,120. This would be true regardless of the manner in which we resolve the issues before us today.
If the same hypothetical worker was a widower and happened to be survived by three wholly dependent minor children whose ages were one year, five years and ten years respectively, a far different result would be required under the interpretation of the statute employed by the majority. Under the majority’s interpretation of G.S. 97-38 the “total compensation award” or maximum weekly compensation of $180 per week would be divided equally with each child receiving $60 per week until he reached 18 years of age. The one year old child would receive $60 per week for 17 years for a total of $53,040. The five year old child would receive $60 per week for 13 years for a total of $40,560. The ten year old child would receive $60 per week for 8 years or a total of $24,960. The total amount paid the three minor children would be $118,560 or $40,560 less than the $159,120 received by the sole surviving minor child in the first hypothetical situation.
In my view, such inequities are created primarily by the majority’s interpretation of G.S. 97-38 and are not “inherent in the variety of life itself.” It is frequently said that variety is the spice of life. Assuming this to be the case, the dish served by the majority is too heavily spiced to suit my taste.
I believe that a proper construction of the statute would allow the dependents of the deceased worker in the second hypothetical situation to receive $180 per week until the youngest of the three children reached 18 years of age with the $180 being divided each week among those still eligible to receive a share. G.S. 97-38(1) provides that:
*284Persons wholly dependent for support upon the earnings of the deceased employee at the time of the accident shall be entitled to receive the entire compensation payable share and share alike to the exclusion of all other persons. If there be only one person wholly dependent, then that person shall receive the entire compensation payable.
(Emphasis added.) The general provision of G.S. 97-38 providing for the continuation of “compensation payments” to a disabled spouse or minor child beyond the 400 week period is, in my view, amplified and extended by the specific provisions of subsection (1) commanding that dependents of the deceased worker receive the “entire compensation payable.” When these provisions are read together, it is my view that they are entirely consistent and harmonious and manifest a legislative intent that the term “entire compensation payable” be construed as referring to the required total compensation award of 66% percent of the average weekly wage earned by the deceased immediately prior to his death. Further, I find that the manifest legislative intent was that this total compensation award or “entire compensation payable” be paid so long as there are beneficiaries eligible to take. See generally 81 Am. Jur. 2d Workmen’s Compensation § 218 (1976 and 1981 Supp.); 99 C.J.S. Workmen’s Compensation § 324(e) (1958 and 1981 Supp.). When a member of the post-400 week beneficiary group becomes ineligible to receive further benefits, that portion of the “entire compensation payable” previously distributed to him should be distributed to the remaining eligible beneficiaries.
I would point out that the interpretation of the statute for which I argue would not remove the inequities “inherent in the variety of life itself.” If a worker dies leaving three small children, each of them would still receive less total compensation than he would have received had he been the sole surviving wholly dependent minor child of the same worker. This type of inequity faces every child who has brothers or sisters and is truly “inherent in the variety of life itself.”
The interpretation I suggest would, however, prevent the harsh and inequitable results which will arise as a result of the majority’s interpretation of the statute. The opinion of the majority compounds and exacerbates the inequities “inherent in the variety of life itself.” It will in many cases cause a worker’s minor *285dependent children who have brothers and sisters to receive not only less individually than a sole dependent child of the same worker would have received, but also less as a class than such sole dependent child would have received individually. I do not believe that the General Assembly intended or the language of the statute requires any such result.
Even if it is conceded arguendo that the statute in question lends itself as easily to the interpretation applied by the majority as to the interpretation for which I argue, the plaintiffs here should prevail under established rules of statutory construction applicable to the Worker’s Compensation Act. In seeking to discover the legislative intent behind the Act, this Court must consider the language of the Act, the spirit of the Act, and what the Act seeks to accomplish. Stevenson v. City of Durham, 281 N.C. 300, 188 S.E. 2d 281 (1972). Additionally, the Worker’s Compensation Act should be liberally construed, whenever appropriate, so that benefits will not be denied upon mere technicalities or strained and narrow interpretations of its provisions. Watkins v. City of Wilmington, 290 N.C. 276, 225 S.E. 2d 577 (1976); Stevenson v. City of Durham, 281 N.C. 300, 188 S.E. 2d 281 (1972). In my view, these rules mandate that G.S. 97-38 be interpreted to provide for a reapportionment of the entire amount of the total compensation award among the remaining dependent minor children in equal shares as each child reaches the age of 18, after the expiration of the initial compensation period of 400 weeks.
For these reasons I respectfully dissent from the opinion of the majority and vote to reverse the Court of Appeals.
Justices EXUM and CARLTON join in this dissenting opinion.