IN RE UPDIKE'S HEIRS

IN RE UPDIKE'S HEIRS
1955 OK 27
282 P.2d 230
Case Number: 35650
Decided: 02/08/1955
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

IN THE MATTER OF GRACE PEARL UPDIKE'S HEIRS. GERALD F. UPDIKE AND LEON W. UPDIKE, SONS, AND SUSAN UPDIKE, AS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND OF JAMES UPDIKE AND JEFFREY UPDIKE, MINORS, GRANDSONS, ALL AS HEIRS OF GRACE PEARL UPDIKE, DECEASED, PETITIONERS,

v.

UPDIKE ADVERTISING SYSTEM, A CORPORATION, AND HARDWARE MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, RESPONDENTS

Syllabus

¶0 1. Under the death benefit provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Law, no recovery can be had for the death of an employee, by claimants who have suffered no pecuniary loss thereby and who were in nowise dependent upon the deceased.

2. A finding by the State Industrial Commission as to dependency, under the death benefit provision of the Workmen's Compensation Act, will not be disturbed on review where such finding is reasonably supported by competent evidence.

Petition for review from the State Industrial Commission.

[282 P.2d 231]

Original proceeding to review an order of the State Industrial Commission denying a death benefit award under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Law to the claimants, Gerald F. Updike and Leon W. Updike, sons, and Susan Updike, as mother and next friend of James Updike and Jeffrey Updike, minor grandsons, all as heirs of Grace Pearl Updike, deceased, as against the employer of said decedent, Updike Advertising System, a corporation, and its insurance carrier, Hardware Mutual Casualty Company, as respondents. Order sustained.

Young, Young & Young, Sapulpa, for petitioners.

Houston, Klein, Melone & Davidson, Henry Kolbus, Tulsa, for respondents.

PER CURIAM

¶1 This is an original proceeding in this court to review an order of the State Industrial Commission, denying an award, of death benefits under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Law,

¶2 The fatal automobile wreck forming the basis of this litigation was also the foundation of cause No. 35,637 in this court. Updike Advertising System, Inc. v. State Industrial Commission,

¶3 A proceeding was filed seeking an award of death benefits for the death of the said James M. Updike as above noted. Also a claim was filed, on behalf of the claimants above named, seeking an award of death benefits for the death of Grace Pearl Updike. The Commission denied an award upon the ground that none of the claimants was dependent upon the deceased as [282 P.2d 232] required by the death benefit provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Law. The instant proceeding was brought to review that order.

¶4 Numerous arguments are presented in the briefs as to why the order denying an award should be sustained, but the reason given by the Commission in said order determines the rights of the parties, and the others, therefore, need not be discussed. The petitioners here urge that the Commission erred in finding that they were not dependents and further erred in refusing to permit the case to be reopened for presentation of additional evidence on the matter of dependency after the promulgation of our opinion in the case of Capitol Steel & Iron Co. v. Fuller, 206 Okl. 638,

¶5 It is tragic when anyone meets sudden and accidental death, but as was pointed out in the Fuller case, supra, no recovery can be had under the death benefit provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Law "unless they (the claimants) suffered a pecuniary loss by reason of the death, in other words, were dependents."

¶6 In the recent case of Jaggers v. Newton Barrett Drilling Company, Okl.,

"In the recent case of Sample v. State Industrial Commission, Okl.,

¶7 None of the testimony in the instant case, including that which was tendered upon reopening of the trial, established a relationship of dependence of the claimants upon the deceased. They were, therefore, not entitled to an award of death benefits.

¶8 The order is sustained.

¶9 JOHNSON, C.J., WILLIAMS, V.C.J., and WELCH, CORN, DAVISON, HALLEY and BLACKBIRD, JJ., concur.