Court Opinion

ID: 9692486
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 15:55:31.970763+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:34.750169
License: Public Domain

BARHAM, Justice
(concurring).
The majority here has apparently differentiated between acknowledgeable and unacknowledgeable illegitimate dependent children in determining their rights under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. In Stokes v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 257 La. 424, 242 So.2d 567 (1971), this court refused to allow an adulterous illegitimate who could not be legitimated to recover as a “child”. The majority here has equated the child who cari1 be legitimated with a “child” as defined by the compensation law. As I previously noted in dissent, the determination of the right of recovery in workmen’s compensation should be made in light of' the legislative purpose in creating the fight. Dependency rather than familial relationships is the overriding consideration.
*671I respectfully concur in the result, for the reasons assigned in my dissent in Stokes v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., supra, believing that such cases are controlled by Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 68, 88 S.Ct. 1509, 20 L.Ed.2d 436, and Levy v. State Through Charity Hospital of Louisiana, 253 La. 73, 216 So.2d 818.