What the panel ordered
WCJ's Findings and Award of October 25, 2019 rescinded; new findings and award issued for total dependency benefits
Petition for Reconsideration granted to study legal and factual issues; decision after reconsideration issued
What was disputed, and how it came out
Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.
Applicant was found to be wholly dependent on decedent at the time of injury based on uncontroverted evidence and testimony, despite prior receipt of Pell grant money, which was not considered to affect dependency at the time of injury.
From the decision · page 4Accordingly, there is substantial, uncontroverted evidence in the record establishing that applicant was wholly dependent on decedent on decedent's July 22, 2011 date of injury. It is therefore our decision after reconsideration to rescind the WCJ's decision, and issue new findings of fact that applicant was wholly dependent for support on decedent on the date of injury, and a new award consistent with section 4702, subdivision (a)(3).
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This established applicant's financial dependency on decedent at the time of injury, supporting total dependency finding.
Applicant was not in school and his father was his only source of income at the time of injury.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This fact confirmed that Pell grant money did not affect dependency status at the time of injury.
Defendant failed to impeach applicant's testimony or prove Pell grant money was received between school semesters.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Lack of contrary evidence supported the applicant's claim of total dependency.
From the decision · page 3This matter went to trial on October 21, 2019 on the sole issue of "[d]ependency of Jonathan the applicant." (MOH, p. 2:12-13.) As stated above, applicant testified that on the date of his father's injury, he was not in school and was wholly dependent on his father for support. Defendant failed to impeach applicant's testimony, or to establish that applicant received Pell Grant money for living expenses in between school semesters. The only evidence produced by defendant at the
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Steele, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 1193; Granell v. Industrial Acci. Com. (1944) 25 Cal.2d 209; Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Chavez (1936) 5 Cal.2d 247; Hartford Acci. & Indem. Co. v. Industrial Acci. Com. (Sampson) (1925) 197 Cal. 17
Dependency status for death benefit purposes is determined by the facts existing at the time of injury.
The Board applied this standard to reject the effect of Pell grant money received after the injury date on dependency status determination.
From the decision · page 3However, it is well established that dependency status for death benefit purposes is determined by the facts existing at the time of injury. (Steele, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 1193; Granell v. Industrial Acci. Com. (1944) 25 Cal.2d 209 [1944 Cal. LEXIS 309]; Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Chavez (1936) 5 Cal.2d 247, 252-253 [1936 Cal. LEXIS 389] [Mother's receipt of life insurance proceeds after injured workers' death did not change her total dependence on the deceased worker at the time of injury.]; Hartford Acci. & Indem. Co. v. Industrial Acci. Com. (Sampson) (1925) 197 Cal. 17, 19 [1925 Cal. LEXIS 210] [Death benefit awarded to the sister of a deceased employee who was dependent on the deceased at the time of injury despite the fact that she became self- supporting a few days later.])
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's uncontroverted testimony that he was wholly dependent on decedent at the time of injury
From the decision · page 3This matter went to trial on October 21, 2019 on the sole issue of "[d]ependency of Jonathan the applicant." (MOH, p. 2:12-13.) As stated above, applicant testified that on the date of his father's injury, he was not in school and was wholly dependent on his father for support. Defendant failed to impeach applicant's testimony, or to establish that applicant received Pell Grant money for living expenses in between school semesters. The only evidence produced by defendant at the
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.