State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Industrial Accident Commission

RICHARDS, J. pro tem.* This is a proceeding to review an award of workmen’s compensation death benefit made by the respondent commission to an 18-year-old dependent minor son of a deceased employee.

William Seagrave was employed by the city of Long Beach, a contracting agency of the State Employees’ Retirement System, as a school crossing guard and in such capacity was a member of the Police Department of Long Beach and a “local safety member” of the State Employees’ Retirement [216]System. The employee suffered a heart attack resulting in his death. After proceedings before it, the Industrial Accident Commission held that the heart attack and death were industrial and that the decedent had left surviving him his widow and 18-year-old son, who were both totally dependent on the deceased employee at the time of his injury and death. The commission awarded to the widow and son the maximum combined death benefit of $8,750 under the California Workmen’s Compensation Law, the benefit to be divided equally between them. The commission also held that the widow should not be paid any part of the workmen’s compensation death benefit in the event she should be entitled to a greater special death benefit under the State Employees’ Retirement Law, but that in any event the son should be paid his one-half of the workmen’s compensation death benefit regardless of whether the widow became entitled to any special death benefit under the State Employees’ Retirement Law.

In a separate proceeding based on a petition filed by the State Employees’ Retirement System under Government Code, section' 21363, the commission held that the deceased employee was a “local safety member” of the State Employees’ Retirement System at the time of his injury and death within the meaning of that section, and that his injury and death were industrial. It is conceded by the parties to this proceeding that under the foregoing section the widow will be paid a special death benefit in excess of the death benefit under the Workmen’s Compensation Law.

The only point raised by the petition is that the award by the commission of one-half of the death benefit to the 18-year-old dependent minor son was erroneous and that in making said award the commission exceeded its jurisdiction. The power of the commission to make the award to the minor son hinges on the interpretation of Labor Code, section 4707.1

Petitioner contends that since there was a surviving widow and no surviving children under 18 years of age, the widow