Barker v. Reynolds

• Decision Date: 29 January 1932
• Docket Number: 14,274
• Parties: BARKER ET AL. v. REYNOLDS ET AL
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

179 N.E. 396

94 Ind.App. 29

BARKER ET AL. v. REYNOLDS ET AL

No. 14,274

Court of Appeals of Indiana

January 29, 1932

From Industrial Board of Indiana.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Nannie S. Barker and another for the death of John Sipe, opposed by Frank S Reynolds and others, employers. From an award of compensation, the employers appealed.

Reversed.

Chauncey W. Duncan, for appellants.

James L. Murray, for appellees.

OPINION

NEAL, C. J.

Appellants appeal from an award of the Industrial Board allowing compensation in the amount of $ 3.16 per week for 300 weeks to appellant Nannie S. Barker, and a finding by the board that appellant Charles R. Barker is not a dependent. It is assigned as error that the award is contrary to law, the first contention being that the Industrial Board erred in arriving at the amount of $ 3.16, being 55 per cent of the weekly contribution by deceased, as found by the board whereas the board should have allowed compensation on a basis of $ 12.75 weekly contribution, or 55 per cent of the minimum weekly wage should have been found. It is uncontroverted that Nannie S. Barker is a partial dependent, and that the deceased, John Sipe, a son of Nannie S. Barker and a stepson of Charles R. Barker, was injured and later died as a result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with appellee.

The undisputed evidence shows that John Sipe contributed $ 12 per week to his mother, except one week in each month when he gave her $ 15 to be used in paying the rent for the home that John Sipe, his half-brother, Mark, who also contributed $ 12 per week to his mother, together with appellants, and sometimes a grandmother of John Sipe, all resided together in the home; that Charles R. Barker "tended some truck on the place"; that John Sipe ate all meals there, and that Nannie S. Barker, in addition to preparing the meals, buying the groceries, etc., did the laundry for deceased; that John Sipe, at the time of the accident and death, was 30 years old; and that the average board and room cost in Rushville is $ 7 per week.

The average weekly amount contributed by John Sipe was $ 12.75. The Industrial Board, in arriving at the amount of partial dependency of Nannie S. Barker, evidently has deducted $ 7 from this average weekly contribution, allowing $ 7 as the amount required to be used for board and room cost to support John Sipe, thereby arriving at $ 5.75 as the amount upon which to base the award. Appellants contend this is contrary to law. That portion of the Workmen's Compensation Law applicable here (Acts 1929 p. 536, § 38e) provides: "In all other cases, questions of total dependency shall be determined in accordance with the fact, as the fact may be at the time of the death, and [the] question of partial dependency shall be determined in like manner as of date of the injury." This same section (paragraphs d and e) in setting out persons presumed wholly dependent, speaking of "child," says: "Upon whom at such time, the laws of the state impose the obligation to support such child." Thus, it appears that, in determining the question of dependency, the fact as to whether a child is a "minor" child, or has been emancipated becomes an important element. It will be noted that John Sipe, at the time of his injury and death, was 30 years old, and, under the facts of this case, there is no showing that he had any obligation to support his parents. Under such circumstances, this court cannot say that it is improper to deduct the amount required to be used and expended for the support of John Sipe out of the contributions he (John Sipe) made to his mother. The $ 7 was merely the sum (as testified to by Nannie S. Barker) that would be required for board and room, whether in the home where appellant resided or elsewhere. The question of dependency is one of fact to be determined by the Industrial Board. Hoosier Veneer Co. v. Stewart (1920), 76 Ind.App. 1, 129 N.E. 246; Rasin v. Miami Coal Co. (1922), 79 Ind.App. 123, 137 N.E. 529; Inland Steel Co. v. Barbalic (1929), 89 Ind.App. 163, 166 N.E. 9.

Appellants contending that the Industrial Board should not have deducted any sum necessary for the support of deceased, have cited a number of cases, which, however, are not in point and do not sustain such contention. The cases cited which bear on the question are cases wherein the...