Court Opinion

ID: 9581618
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:16:53.006004+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:08.075428
License: Public Domain

Eberhardt, Judge,
concurring specially. While there may be merit in the views of Judges Jordan and Hall as to the proper interpretation of the Compensation Act on the matter of dependency, I do not see how we can reach the result they do under the facts of this case so long as Reese v. American Mut. Liab. Ins. Co., 67 Ga. App. 420 (3) (20 SE2d 773) stands. We are bound by it. And in Maryland Cas. Co. v. Campbell, 34 Ga. App. 311 *603(129 SE 447) it was asserted that “The question of dependency is one of fact, to be determined according to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, from the amounts, frequency, and continuity of actual contributions of cash or supplies, the needs of the claimant, and the legal or moral obligation of the employee.” (Emphasis supplied.) And see Glens Falls Indem. Co. v. Jordan, 56 Ga. App. 449 (193 SE 96) where the court quoted approvingly (p. 453) from 2 Schneider on Workmen’s Compensation Laws, 1194, § 367: “Dependency being a question of fact, at least until the facts are found, and the facts as varied as the number of cases, each case must be decided on its own facts. The first question to be determined is whether or not the claimant suffered loss in respect to his or her support or maintenance. This being found in the affirmative, it is then necessary to determine whether or not the claimant was entitled, legally or morally, to consider the contributions received from deceased as a part of his or her necessary livelihood; that is, whether such contributions formed a part of the sort of support to which the claimant, within considerable radius of reason, was entitled.” (Emphasis supplied.)
The case of St. Paul-Mercury Indem. Co. v. Robinson, 88 Ga. App. 217 (76 SE2d 512) may appear to be in conflict with it, but the other cases are older; further, as the majority point out, there is language in the opinion indicating that the holding was not intended to be in conflict with the prior cases.
Moreover, even if Reese were overruled and the interpretation urged by Judges Jordan and Hall adopted, a reversal must still result. The finding of the board was of total dependency and the award was made accordingly. This is unsupported in the record. Claimant testified that she worked, that from the time of her purported marriage with the deceased she earned $15 per week and that, pooling their earnings, they just “split the cost of living.” Thus, a finding of total dependency was unauthorized, and the award was improper. See Maryland Cas Co. v. Bess, 33 Ga. App. 798 (127 SE 828), where there was a finding of partial dependency and an apportioned award based upon the extent of the dependency was made. If an award based upon total dependency is to be permitted when partial depen*604dency only is proven, the reference to partial dependency in the statute is meaningless.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Bell and Judge Deen join in this special concurrence.