Death of Winters, Matter of, 90CA1053

• Decision Date: 11 April 1991
• Docket Number: No. 90CA1053,90CA1053
• Parties: In the Matter of the DEATH OF Harold WINTERS, Deceased. Eileen WINTERS, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS OFFICE of the STATE OF COLORADO; Director, Division of Labor; Colorado Compensation Insurance Authority, and Bud Bothwell Lath and Plaster, Respondents. . V
• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals

Page 542

819 P.2d 542

In the Matter of the DEATH OF Harold WINTERS, Deceased.

Eileen WINTERS, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS OFFICE of the STATE OF

COLORADO; Director, Division of Labor; Colorado

Compensation Insurance Authority, and

Bud Bothwell Lath and Plaster,

Respondents.

No. 90CA1053.

Colorado Court of Appeals,

Div. V.

April 11, 1991.

Rehearing Denied May 9, 1991.

Certiorari Denied Oct. 28, 1991.

Steven U. Mullens, P.C., Steven U. Mullens, James A. May, Pueblo, for petitioner.

Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., Michelle R. Magruder, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for respondents Industrial Claim Appeals Office and Director, Div. of Labor.

Colorado Compensation Ins. Authority, John Berry, Denver, for respondents Colorado Compensation Ins. Authority and Bud Bothwell Lath and Plaster.

Opinion by Judge NEY.

Eileen Winters, the widow of Harold Winters, seeks review of a final order of the Industrial Claim Appeals Office (Panel) determining that the dependent's death benefits payable to her would terminate six years from the date that her deceased husband began receiving permanent total disability benefits. We affirm.

The facts are undisputed. Harold Winters sustained an admitted work-related injury in 1977. On March 27, 1981, he was determined to be permanently and totally disabled as a result of such injury. He died on June 28, 1986, of causes unrelated to his injury; thereafter, his wholly dependent widow sought death benefits.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that a dependent's right to death benefits is created by the death of the workers' compensation claimant and is wholly independent of that claimant's right to disablement benefits. Therefore, he concluded that such entitlement commences as of the date of death and continues thereafter for a period of six years. Hence, he awarded the widow the death benefits until June 28, 1992.

On review, the Panel set aside the order of the ALJ. It concluded that the plain language of the statute now codified as § 8-42-116(1), C.R.S. (1990 Cum.Supp.) (formerly § 8-50-112(1), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 3B)) awards to the dependent only the unpaid and unaccrued portion of permanent total disability benefits which the claimant would have received for six years. Thus, it modified the ALJ's order to award death benefits only to March 27, 1987, i.e., six years from the date the permanent disability award had been made.

Petitioner asserts that her entitlement to death benefits commenced as of the date of her husband's death. She argues that such a construction of § 8-42-116(1) is consistent with the legislative intent to prevent the dependents of injured workers from becoming destitute and is necessary to avoid an absurd result. We disagree.

Section 8-42-116(1) provides in pertinent part:

"If death occurs to an injured employee, other than as a proximate result of an injury, before disability indemnity ceases and the deceased leaves persons wholly dependent upon him for support, death benefits shall be as follows:

(a) Where the injury proximately caused permanent total disability, the death benefit shall consist of the unpaid and unaccrued portion of the permanent total disability benefit which the employee would have received had he lived until he had received compensation at his regular rate for a period of six years."

A statute should be construed in a manner that gives effect to the legislative purpose underlying its enactment. Allee v. Contractors, Inc., 783 P.2d 273 (Colo.1989). To determine legislative intent, a court is required first to look at the statutory language, and words and phrases are to be given their plain and obvious meaning. People v. District Court, 713 P.2d 918 (Colo.1986). We must also consider the results of an urged construction. People in Interest of K.M.J., 698 P.2d 1380 (Colo.App.1984).

We agree with the Panel's construction of § 8-42-116(1). Generally, the disability benefits awarded to an employee and death benefits awarded to an employee's dependents are entirely independent of one another. State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Industrial Commission, 724 P.2d 679 (Colo.App.1986). ...