256 WILLIAMS v. CYPRESS CREEK DRAINAGE Cite as 5 Ark. App. 256 (1982) [5
Annie Mae WILLIAMS v. CYPRESS CREEK DRAINAGE, Employer, FARM BUREAU INS. CO .,
Ins. Carrier CA 82-58 635 S.W.2d 282 Court of Appeals of Arkansas
Opinion delivered June 30, 1982 1. WORKERS' COMPENSATION — DETERMINATION OF PARTIAL DEPENDENCY OF CLAIMANT — ERROR TO USE DEFINITION OF "DEPENDENT" FROM WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY INSTEAD OF FROM STATUTORY AND CASE LAW. — In determining whether a claimant was partially dependent on a deceased employee under the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Act, it was error for the Commission to take the definition of the word "dependent" from Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary instead of from the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Act and the appellate cases which have construed and interpreted that Act. 2. WORKERS' COMPENSATION — PARTIAL DEPENDENCY — WHEN RIGHT TO COMPENSATION MAY EXIST. — Partial dependency,
ARK. APP.] WILLIAMS v. CYPRESS CREEK DRAINAGE 257 Cite as 5 Ark. App. 256 (1982) giving a right to compensation, may exist, though the contributions be at irregular intervals and of irregular amounts, and though the dependent has other means of support and be not reduced to absolute want; it may exist where the contributions made by the decedent were looked to by the claimant for the maintenance of his or her accustomed standard of living. 3. WORKERS' COMPENSATION — DEPENDENCY IS FACT QUESTION. — Dependency is a fact question to be determined in the light of surrounding circumstances. 4. WORKERS' COMPENSATION — DEPENDENCY — FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING DEPENDENCY. — Factors to be considered in determining dependency include claimant's reasonable expectation of future support and the support being furnished at the time of the worker's injury or death, as well as conditions prior to the injury or death; furthermore, a reasonable time period should be used in determining dependency, and it would be appropriate to consider the amount of any contribution the decedent made to claimant's support in the light of the amount of any contribution she made to his support. Appeal from Arkansas Workers' Compenstion Commission; remanded. Bairn, Bairn, Gunti, Mouser & Bryant, by: Judith A. DeSimone, for appellant. Laser, Sharp & Huckabay, P.A., for appellees. MELVIN MAYFIELD, Chief Judge. This is an appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission denying dependency benefits. James Williams began working for Cypress Creek Drainage on June 13, 1980, and worked until he died in an accident on the job on August 6, 1980. At the time of his death, the decederit was 20 years old, unmarried, and left no surviving children. Annie Mae Williams, his mother, filed a workers' compensation claim for dependency benefits under Ark. Stat. Ann. § 81-1315 (Repl. 1976). The administrative law judge held that appellant failed to prove that she was partially dependent on the decedent
258 WILLIAMS v. CYPRESS CREEK DRAINAGE Cite as 5 Ark. App. 256 (1982) [5 but we are troubled by the law judge's opinion in which he took his definition of the word "dependent" from Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary instead of the Arkansas Workers' Compenstion Act and the appellate cases which have construed and interpreted that Act. Since the commission specifically stated that it adopted the law judge's opinion as its own, we are f^rce-1 to c"nclurie that the decision appealed from was not based upon the law. We, therefore, remand this matter for a determination based upon the law as we now review it. In Crossett Lumber Co. v. Johnson, 208 Ark. 572, 187 S.W.2d 161 (1945), the court quoted with approval from a treatise on workers' compensation by Honnold as follows: Partial dependency, giving a right to compensation, may exist, though the contributions be at irregular intervals and of irregular amounts, and though the dependent have other means of support, and be not reduced to absolute want. In Smith v. Farm Service Cooperative, 244 Ark. 119, 424 S.W.2d 147 (1968), the court said, "Dependency is a fact question. It is to be determined in the light of surrounding circumstances." And the court quoted with approval from Larson's treatise on workers' compensation. The full paragraph from Larson now reads: Partial dependency may be found when, although the claimant may have other substantial sources of support from his own work, from property, or from other persons on whom claimant is also dependent, the contributions made by the decedent were looked to by the claimant for the maintenance of his accustomed standard of living. 2 Larson's Workmen's Compensation § 63.12 (a) (Nov. 1981 Cum. Supp.). A factor to be considered is the claimant's "reasonable
ARK. APP.] WILLIAMS V. CYPRESS CREEK DRAINAGE 259 Cite as 5 Ark. App. 256 (1982) expectation of future support." Roach Mfg. Co. v. Cole, 265 Ark. 908, 582 S.W.2d 268 (1979); Doyle's Concrete Finishers v. Moppin, 268 Ark. 167, 594 S. .2d 243 (1980). Obviously, the support being furnished at the time of the worker's injury is important but conditions prior to the injury should be considered, Nolen v. Wortz Biscuit Co., 210 Ark. 446, 196 S.W.2d 899 (1946); a reasonable period of time should be used, Smith v. Farm Service Cooperative; dependency is not to be controlled by an unusual temporary situation, Roach Mfg. Co. v. Cole. Also in the instant case, it would be appropriate to consider the amount of any contribution the decedent made to his mother's support in the light of the amount of any contribution she made to his support. Pufahl v. Tamak Gas Products Co., 238 Ark. 895, 385 S.W.2d 640 (1965); Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Yeager, 219 Ark. 20,239 S.W.2d 1019 (1951). This matter is remanded for a decision based upon the law as set out above. We leave to the commission's discretion the question of whether another hearing should be had. Remanded. GLAZE, J., not participating.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.