Citation Numbers: 146 A. 893, 297 Pa. 302
Judges: PER CURIAM, July 1, 1929:
Filed Date: 5/27/1929
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023
Argued May 27, 1929.
The only question before us in the present case is whether or not there was "competent evidence to support an award of compensation on a claim of dependency *Page 303
by the parents of a deceased employee." We affirm the judgment of the court below on the following excerpts from its opinion: "The referee awarded compensation __________ to __________ the parents of John Todd, who sustained accidental injuries while in the course of his employment on February 3, 1928, which resulted in his death on the same day. The award was affirmed by the __________ board and __________ defendant __________ appealed to [the] court [below, filing] four exceptions, [all raising] the single question whether there [was] __________ legal, competent evidence to sustain the referee's finding of fact, affirmed by the board, that the claimants were totally dependent upon the deceased employee at the time of the accident. This case is governed by section 307 (5) of the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1915 (P. L. 736, 744) as amended by section 2 of the Act of Assembly approved April 13, 1927, P. L. 186, 191, which provides: 'If there be neither widow, widower, nor children entitled to compensation, then to the father or mother, if dependent to any extent upon the employee at the time of the accident, twenty-five per centum of wages, but not in excess of five dollars per week: Provided, however, That in the case of a minor child who had been contributing to his parents, the dependency of said parents shall be presumed, and: Provided, further, That, if the father or mother was totally dependent upon the deceased employee at the time of the accident, the compensation payable to such father or mother shall be forty-five per centum of wages, but not in excess of ten dollars per week.' The deceased employee was not a minor and the case does not rest upon any presumption; hence the burden was on claimants to show affirmatively that they were dependent upon the deceased employee at the time of the accident. __________ Dependency is a question of fact to be determined by the referee and the compensation board: Hallman v. Starr Printing Co.,
We agree with the court below that evidence to support the finding in question appears on the record.
The judgment is affirmed.
Gailey v. S. Workmen's Ins. Fund , 286 Pa. 311 ( 1926 )
Morris v. Yough Coal & Supply Co. , 266 Pa. 216 ( 1920 )
Hallman v. Starr Printing Co. , 70 Pa. Super. 562 ( 1919 )
DiCampli v. General Electric Co. , 193 Pa. Super. 427 ( 1960 )
Kovatch Et Ux. v. Durkin , 116 Pa. Super. 192 ( 1934 )
Loeffler v. Western Elec. Co. , 107 Pa. Super. 326 ( 1932 )
Smitti Et Ux. v. Roth Cadillac Co. , 145 Pa. Super. 292 ( 1941 )
Zedalis Et Ux. v. Jeddo-Highl'd C. Co. , 113 Pa. Super. 49 ( 1934 )
Williams v. John B. Kelly Co., Inc. , 128 Pa. Super. 228 ( 1937 )
Maskovyak Et Ux. v. Sonman Coal Co. , 155 Pa. Super. 411 ( 1944 )
Roselli v. Franklin Tan. Co. , 109 Pa. Super. 113 ( 1933 )
Sinkiewicz v. Susq. Collieries Co. , 115 Pa. Super. 377 ( 1934 )
Gerst Et Ux. v. Smith-Faris Co. , 107 Pa. Super. 30 ( 1932 )
J. and M. Breslin v. Susq. Col. Co. , 107 Pa. Super. 449 ( 1932 )
Franey v. Glen Alden Coal Co. , 105 Pa. Super. 448 ( 1932 )
A.J. Dunbar v. B.A. Jacobson, Inc. , 106 Pa. Super. 95 ( 1932 )
Morrow v. Monarch M. Sales Co. , 109 Pa. Super. 162 ( 1933 )