Court Opinion

ID: 9652576
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:26:52.565804+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:52.477629
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Ervin, J.:
I am obliged to respectfully dissent in this case because in my judgment it is ruled by our unanimous decision in the case of Carter v. Vecchione, 183 Pa. Superior Ct. 595 (Allocatur refused 184 Pa. Superior Ct. xxv) 133 A. 2d 297.
I agree with the majority that when there is a dispute as to the facts, the board’s finding is conclusive. When, however, the facts are admitted and permit but a single legitimate inference, the question becomes one of law: Icenhour v. Freedom Oil Works Co., 145 Pa. Superior Ct. 168, 20 A. 2d 817; Motley v. Braun Construction Co., 169 Pa. Superior Ct. 141, 82 A. 2d 581; Carter v. Vecchione, supra, at page 601. In the present case there was no dispute as to the facts. The claimant-widow was not living with the decedent at the time of his death and she had not been living with her husband since 1942. She was employed, receiving wages of $25.00 per week, her board and lodging, uniforms and occasional articles of clothing. Her husband contributed the sum of $20.00 semi-monthly to her for her support. The claimant was receiving $25.00 per week as wages, her board and lodging of the approximate value of $15.00 a week, uniforms and occasional articles of clothing, which were not valued but which certainly had some value. The undisputed evidence reveals that the claimant was earning in excess of $40.00 per week and received from her husband approximately $9.00 per week for her support. The husband contributed less than one-fifth of the total amount necessary for her support and maintenance. What we said in *361Carter v. Vecchione, supra, at page 601, is applicable here: “Prior to 1939, where husband and wife were not living together, the widow, in order to become entitled to compensation, was required only to affirmatively establish that she was actually dependent upon him for support, and actually receiving support from him was not essential to her right to compensation. The Workmen’s Compensation Act was amended in 1939 to provide that ‘No compensation shall be payable under this section to a widow, unless she was living with her deceased husband at the time of his death, or was then actually dependent upon him and receiving from him a substantial portion of her support(Emphasis added) Act of June 21, 1939, P. L. 520, §1, 77 PS §562. Subsequent amendments have not changed the language of the 1939 amendment. The first case involving the 1939 amendment was Hendricks v. Bethlehem Steel Co., 150 Pa. Superior Ct. 257, 27 A. 2d 264. In that opinion Judge, now President Judge, Rhodes said: ‘But under the Act of 1939 the fact that a wife, living apart from her husband, was actually dependent upon him at the time of his death is not sufficient in itself to establish the right of the widow to compensation; she is also required to affirmatively show as a fact that she was then receiving from him a substantial portion of her support. Her right to compensation has been made to depend upon the fact of receiving support at the time of his death.’ (Emphasis added) ....
“We have not clearly defined what the legislature intended by the additional language ‘and receiving from him a substantial portion of her support.’ Certainly the legislature intended to make it more difficult for a wife, separated from her husband, to obtain compensation. In Webster’s New International Dictionary, Second Edition, Unabridged, the word ‘sub*362stantial’ is defined: ‘7. Considerable in amount, value, or the like; large; as, a substantial gain. ... 10. Of or pert, to the substance or main part of anything.’ The evidence in this case -would not permit a fact finder to find that the claimant was receiving the main part of her support from her husband.”
In my judgment, less than one-fifth of the amount necessary for support of a claimant is not sufficient to amount to “a substantial portion of her support.”
I would therefore affirm the order of the court below.
Woodside and Watkins, JJ., join in this dissenting opinion.