Williams v. Travelers Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 24 November 1975
• Citation: 530 S.W.2d 283
• Parties: Mrs. Charles Edward WILLIAMS et al., Appellants, v. The TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO. et al., Appellees.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Page 283

530 S.W.2d 283

Mrs. Charles Edward WILLIAMS et al., Appellants, v.The TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO. et al., Appellees.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

Nov. 24, 1975.

Palmer, Palmer & Jordan, Dyesburg, Howard M. Taradash, Nashville, for appellants.

Russell L. Moore, Jr., Ewell & Farmer, Dyersburg, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

OPINION

This case involves controverted claims to workmen's compensation benefits to be paid as the result of the death of Charles Edward Williams on October 25, 1971.Mr. Williams was killed in an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment by the Jones Construction Company.The original complaint in this cause was filed by Travelers Insurance Company to have the Dyer County Law and Equity Court declare the rights of the several claimants, and possible claimants, to benefits to be paid under the Workmen's Compensation Act.Material to this appeal, the trial judge found:

(1)the defendantReba NellCarson Williams was the wife of the deceased employee, was living with him at the time of his death, and was dependent upon him for support;

(2)the defendantThomas Allen was the stepson of the deceased employee, as living with him at the time of his death, and was dependent upon him for support; and

(3) that the defendant, Reba Fay Williams, was the illegitimate daughter of the deceased employee.

Based on these findings of fact, the trial judge awarded benefits to Reba NellCarson Williams at the rate of forty-six dollars ($46.00) per week; to Thomas Allen Bingham at the rate of four dollars and fifty cents ($4.50) per week; and to Reba Fay Williams at the rate of four dollars and fifty cents ($4.50) per seek.The order of the trial judge also provided that Travelers Insurance Company could pay the benefits in a lump sum commuted according to statute, with Mrs. Williams being entitled to receive $11,532.94, and Thomas Allen Bingham and Reba Fay Williams, each to receive $1,532.91.

Appeals were perfected on behalf of Reba Fay Williams and by Reba NellCarson Williams.Essentially, Reba Fay Williams takes issue with the trial judge's finding that Mrs. Williams and Thomas Allen Bingham were entitled to receive workmen's compensation benefits, the amount of benefits awarded them, and the holding of the trial judge that the benefits could be paid in a lump sum.In turn, Mrs. Williams takes issue with the finding of the trial judge that Reba Fay Williams is the illegitimate doughter of Charles Edward Williams.

In reviewing issues of fact in a workmen's compensation case, this court reviews the record to determine only if the trial judge's findings are supported by any material evidence.Gluck Brothers, Inc. v. Breeden, 215 Tenn. 587, 387 S.W.2d 825(1965).As pointed out in General Shale Products Corp. v. Casey, 202 Tenn. 219, 303 S.W.2d 736(1957).

'The legislature in enacting the compensation act expressly entrusted the trial court with the power to find the facts and when such facts are supported by any material evidence, even if this Court thinks the evidence points otherwise, the trial court must be affirmed.'

On reviewing the record within the scope of review allowed this court, we find material evidence to sustain the trial judge's awards of benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

For the purposes of the workmen's compensation law, a wife living with her husband at the time of his death from an industrial accident within the course and scope of his employment is conclusively presumed to be wholly dependent on her husband for support and is entitled to benefits under the workmen's compensation law.T.C.A. 50--1013(a)(1) and (c)(1).The evidence is that Reba NellCarson Williams married Charles Edward Williams on August 21, 1971, and was living with him at the time of his death.

There is also a conclusive presumption that a minor child of the deceased employee under sixteen years of age is wholly dependent on the deceased employee for support with the sequential result the minor child is entitled to benefits.T.C.A. 50--1013(a)(1) and (c)(1).The presumption applies to illegitimate children on proof of the employee's paternity.Terry v. Burlington Industries, 220 Tenn. 668, 423 S.W.2d 476(1968).

The evidence shows that the child, Reba Fay Williams was born April 3, 1963, in Detroit, Michigan, and was eight years of age at the time Charles Edward Williams was killed.Her natural mother, Clara Frances Bates, was married to Mr. Williams in 1959 and divorced from him on December 9, 1960.Miss Bates married Albert Sterlon Tyce on November 25, 1963.Mrs. Tyce testified that after her divorce from Mr. Williams and before taking up with Mr. Tyce, her sexual activity was limited to one occasion with Mr. Williams in 1962 and that it was at that time Reba Fay was conceived.Another witness testified he saw Mr. Williams asleep in Mrs. Tyce's, then Miss Bates', bedroom at the time testified to by Mrs. Tyce.Out of an abundance of caution, the trial judge ordered Mr. and Mrs. Tyce and Reba Fay to undertake blood grouping tests.The results of the tests were not filed, but there is a statement by the trial judge that the tests showed Mr. Tyce could not possibly be the father of Reba Fay.In our opinion the above, as recounted, is material evidence that Charles Edward Williams was the natural father of Reba Fay Williams.

Thomas Allen Bingham, the third claimant awarded benefits by the trial judge, is the stepson of the deceased employee.A stepchild, who is a member of the employee's family and is dependent upon the employee for support, is a dependent child within the ambit of protection of the Workmen's Compensation Act and is entitled to share benefits equally with an actual child of the deceased employee.SeeT.C.A. 50--1013(a)(3);Atkins v. Employers Mutual Insurance Co., 208 Tenn. 539, 347 S.W.2d 49(1961);Cherokee Brick Co. v. Bishop, 156 Tenn. 168, 299 S.W. 770(1927).Relationship is not the test, but support and actual dependency of the child.Atkins v. Employers Mutual Insurance Co., supra;Wilmoth, et al. v. Phoenix Utility Co., et al., 168 Tenn. 95, 75 S.W.2d 48(1934).On the issue of dependency, Mrs. Williams testified...