{
  "id": 6142157,
  "name": "Annie Mae WILLIAMS v. CYPRESS CREEK DRAINAGE, Employer, FARM BUREAU INS. CO., Ins. Carrier",
  "name_abbreviation": "Williams v. Cypress Creek Drainage",
  "decision_date": "1982-06-30",
  "docket_number": "CA 82-58",
  "first_page": "256",
  "last_page": "259",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "5 Ark. App. 256"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "635 S.W.2d 282"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "219 Ark. 20",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1609108
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1951,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/219/0020-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "238 Ark. 895",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1734257
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/238/0895-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "210 Ark. 446",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8721320
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1946,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/210/0446-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "268 Ark. 167",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1715269
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/268/0167-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "265 Ark. 908",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1664706
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/265/0908-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "244 Ark. 119",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8718209
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/244/0119-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "208 Ark. 572",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1478722
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1945,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/208/0572-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 315,
    "char_count": 3748,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.834,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.77084526399421e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4095420234924893
    },
    "sha256": "18a7d01f835b88932edb15deedd24df07a0b316edbbb38084b206d18ab91d083",
    "simhash": "1:f124ce71024cc89a",
    "word_count": 619
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:41:16.889106+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Glaze, J., not participating."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Annie Mae WILLIAMS v. CYPRESS CREEK DRAINAGE, Employer, FARM BUREAU INS. CO., Ins. Carrier"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Melvin Mayfield, Chief Judge.\nThis is an appeal from a decision of the Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission denying dependency benefits.\nJames Williams began working for Cypress Creek Drainage on June 13, 1980, and worked until he died in an accident on the job on August 6, 1980. At the time of his death, the decedent was 20 years old, unmarried, and left no surviving children. Annie Mae Williams, his mother, filed a workers\u2019 compensation claim for dependency benefits under Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 81-1315 (Repl. 1976).\nThe administrative law judge held that appellant failed to prove that she was partially dependent on the decedent but we are troubled by the law judge\u2019s opinion in which he took his definition of the word \u201cdependent\u201d from Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary instead of the Arkansas Workers\u2019 Compenstion Act and the appellate cases which have construed and interpreted that Act.\nSince the commission specifically stated that it adopted the law judge\u2019s opinion as its own, we are forced to conclude that the decision appealed from was not based upon the law.\nWe, therefore, remand this matter for a determination based upon the law as we now review it.\nIn Crossett Lumber Co. v. Johnson, 208 Ark. 572, 187 S.W.2d 161 (1945), the court quoted with approval from a treatise on workers\u2019 compensation by Honnold as follows:\nPartial dependency, giving a right to compensation, may exist, though the contributions be at irregular intervals and of irregular amounts, and though the dependent have other means of support, and be not reduced to absolute want.\nIn Smith v. Farm Service Cooperative, 244 Ark. 119, 424 S.W.2d 147 (1968), the court said, \u201cDependency is a fact question. It is to be determined in the light of surrounding circumstances.\u201d And the court quoted with approval from Larson\u2019s treatise on workers\u2019 compensation. The full paragraph from Larson now reads:\nPartial dependency may be found when, although the claimant may have other substantial sources of support from his own work, from property, or from other persons on whom claimant is also dependent, the contributions made by the decedent were looked to by the claimant for the maintenance of his accustomed standard of living.\n2 Larson\u2019s Workmen\u2019s Compensation \u00a7 65.12 (a) (Nov. 1981 Cum. Supp.).\nA factor to be considered is the claimant\u2019s \u201creasonable expectation of future support.\u201d Roach Mfg. Co. v. Cole, 265 Ark. 908, 582 S.W.2d 268 (1979); Doyle\u2019s Concrete Finishers v. Moppin, 268 Ark. 167, 594 S. W.2d 243 (1980). Obviously, the support being furnished at the time of the worker\u2019s injury is important but conditions prior to the injury should be considered, Nolen v. Wortz Biscuit Co., 210 Ark. 446, 196 S.W.2d 899 (1946); a reasonable period of time should be used, Smith v. Farm Service Cooperative; dependency is not to be controlled by an unusual temporary situation, Roach Mfg. Co. v. Cole.\nAlso in the instant case, it would be appropriate to consider the amount of any contribution the decedent made to his mother\u2019s support in the light of the amount of any contribution she made to his support. Pufahl v. Tamak Gas Products Co., 238 Ark. 895, 385 S.W.2d 640 (1965); Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Yeager, 219 Ark. 20, 239 S.W.2d 1019 (1951).\nThis matter is remanded for a decision based upon the law as set out above. We leave to the commission\u2019s discretion the question of whether another hearing should be had.\nRemanded.\nGlaze, J., not participating.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Melvin Mayfield, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Baim, Baim, Gunti, Mouser br Bryant, by: Judith A. DeSimone, for appellant.",
      "Laser, Sharp br Huckabay, P.A., for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Annie Mae WILLIAMS v. CYPRESS CREEK DRAINAGE, Employer, FARM BUREAU INS. CO., Ins. Carrier\nCA 82-58\n635 S.W.2d 282\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered June 30, 1982\nBaim, Baim, Gunti, Mouser br Bryant, by: Judith A. DeSimone, for appellant.\nLaser, Sharp br Huckabay, P.A., for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0256-01",
  "first_page_order": 278,
  "last_page_order": 281
}