 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ditto v. Stoneberger8/28/2002
employed at the time of his death, where that employment was temporary or occasional and the claimant's intention was to depend solely on her husband's income in the future as she had in the past. Bethlehem-Fairfield Shipyard, Inc. v. Rosenthal, 185 Md. 416, 427 (1945). The Court found a claimant to be totally dependent, even though she was separated from her spouse at the time of his death and collected weekly rent from a boarder; the Court reasoned that she nevertheless met the definition of total dependence because she received monthly support from her spouse. Harvey v. Roche & Son, 148 Md. 363, 370 (1925).
In Knibb v. Jackson, 210 Md. 292 (1956), a minor brother, Joseph, was dependent on his deceased older brother, James, and the question was the extent of his dependency. Both brothers, one seventeen and the other thirteen-years-old, lived with their mother. Id. at 295. The mother received a weekly wage of $37, although her take home pay varied from $32 most weeks to $28 for the week each month that her health insurance premium was deducted. Id. James, the older son, earned $35 per week. From his earnings, he gave his mother $22 per week - $7 for his board, $5 for his mother's use, and $10 for his younger brother, Joseph. Id.
The Court of Appeals concluded that the case was properly submitted to the jury for a determination of whether the Industrial Accident Commission was correct in finding Joseph totally dependent on James. Id. at 296. The Court said, however, that if the jury reached the conclusion that the earnings of the mother and the older brother were pooled for the common support of all three family members, then the jury must find that the younger brother was only partially dependent on his deceased older brother. Id. at 298. Because a jury instruction was not given to that effect, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case. Id. at 300-01.
In Mario Anello & Sons, Inc. v. Dunn, the Court of Appeals found a woman (Mrs. Dunn) to be partially, rather than wholly, dependent on her deceased husband where the woman's earnings were pooled with her husband's and used to pay their bills. Dunn, 217 Md. at 182-83. Mrs. Dunn was employed as a sewing-machine operator. In 1954, she earned a total of $1,604.51 and in 1955, a total of $1,957.40. She earned an average take-home pay of $30 per week in January of 1956. Her husband earned an average weekly wage of $90. The Court said that "where the evidence, or any inferences fairly deducible from it, was legally sufficient to support a rational conclusion of total dependency . . . , this Court has held that the issue should be submitted to the jury . . . ." Id. at 181. " here the facts are undisputed, [however,] and permit no inferences consistent with the existence of a supposed or asserted right, the existence of such a right is an unmixed question of law for the court . . . ." Id. In light of Ms. Dunn's "substantial contributions to the pool of her and her husband's wages for nearly two and one-half years extending to the date of his injury , and the use of the funds for the support of the family," the Court determined that Mrs. Dunn was not wholly dependent on her husband as a matter of law. Id. at 182-83.
The compensation cases make it clear that usually a person who has pooled his or her income with a now-deceased (or injured) worker is not wholly dependent on the worker - but is partially dependent. Mullan Construction Co. v. Day, 218 Md. 581 (1959); Dunn, 217 Md. at 182-83, and Knibb, 210 Md. at 298. But when two people pool their incomes and the claimant's income is relatively minuscule compared with that of the injured worker, the claimant can still be deemed to be wholly dependent. See Martin, 353 Md
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|