From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brown v. Hubert

Supreme Court of New Hampshire Merrimack
Apr 27, 1956
100 N.H. 194 (N.H. 1956)

Opinion

No. 4472.

Argued April 3, 1956.

Decided April 27, 1956.

The provision in the Workmen's Compensation Law (RSA 281:22) that if death results from an injury arising out of and in the course of the workman's employment, "the employer shall pay to, or for the dependent or dependents of the deceased employee" certain compensation benefits, created in the dependents upon the decedent's death a right to compensation separate and distinct from that which he acquired from his injury.

Hence, a final compensation settlement agreement executed by the deceased employee in his lifetime for loss resulting from his injuries is no bar to a claim for compensation by his dependents after his death.

So also, since such settlement was not related to the right of the dependents to seek compensation, the failure of either the employee in his lifetime or the dependents after his death to apply for modification of the settlement agreement does not affect the dependents' rights.

PETITION, for compensation brought under Workmen's Compensation Law (Laws 1947, c. 266, as amended, now RSA ch. 281) by Ruth Lillian Brown, individually and as mother and next friend of Nancy Carol Brown. The plaintiff Ruth is the dependent widow and Nancy the dependent daughter of Laurence O. Brown a deceased employee of Annie M. Hubert doing business as Hubert Farms. The Merchants Mutual Casualty Company, the other defendant, is the insurance carrier for the employer.

Laurence O. Brown sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment by Hubert Farms at Concord on December 3, 1951. On December 18 he signed an "Agreement for Temporary, Total or Partial Disability Compensation," and on February 6, 1952, a "Final Report and Receipt for Industrial Accident to Labor Commissioner." The sum of $285.90 was paid for medical, hospital and ambulance expenses and the sum of $240 for eight weeks of compensation. He died on October 15, 1954.

On March 21, 1955, his widow and daughter filed this petition for compensation. The defendants filed a plea in bar asking its dismissal since plaintiffs' rights were barred by the final agreement executed on February 6, 1952. At the hearing plaintiffs contended that this agreement was invalid because certain statutory requirements regarding it were not carried out.

The Court (Wescott, J.) overruled and dismissed the plea in bar and declined to rule on the validity of the final settlement in view of its ruling that even if valid it did not bar the petition.

Defendants' exceptions to the overruling of its plea in bar, to the granting and denial of certain requests and to the findings and rulings of the Court were allowed and transferred.

H. Thornton Lorimer (by brief and orally), for the plaintiffs.

Burns, Calderwood Bryant (Mr. Bryant orally), for the defendants.


The main issue to be decided is the nature of the right to compensation which "the employer shall pay to, or for the dependent or dependents of the deceased employee" under Laws 1947, c. 266, s. 20, now RSA 281:22.

It was stated in Cote v. Company, 85 N.H. 444, 446, that although "the statute might conceivably have been drawn in such a way as to give to every dependent of a deceased workman a separate right of action for the loss resulting to such dependent from his death," no such purpose was discernible in P. L., c. 178. This law provided that in case death resulted from injury to a workman who left a widow, children or parents then dependent on his earnings for support a certain amount of compensation was to be paid to his legal representatives for the benefit of such dependents. Ss. 19, 20.

Under the comprehensive amendment in the Workmen's Compensation Law made by chapter 266, Laws 1947, it was provided in section 20 that "if death results from the injury, the employer shall pay to, or for the dependent or dependents of the deceased employee"a certain amount of compensation. If compensation is "payable to a widow . . . for the benefit of herself . . . and dependent child or children, the commissioner of labor shall have power to determine in his discretion what portion . . . shall be applied for the benefit of any such child . . . and may order the same paid to a guardian." S. 20 I, now RSA 281:22.

By this difference in wording the Legislature intended to change from a system by which on his death the right of the workman survived to his legal representative for the benefit of his dependents (Cote v. Company, supra) to one by which his death creates "in dependent widow or child a right of action separate and distinct from that of the deceased employee contrary to the situation prevailing under the prior law." Gagne v. Greenhouses, 99 N.H. 292, 296; Hirsch v. Company, 97 N.H. 480, 486.

The result is that the injured employee has a right to compensation for the loss which he has sustained from his injury and his dependents have a separate and distinct right to compensation for the loss which they sustained by the death of the employee who was source of support to them. Diamond v. Employers' c. Co., 97 N.H. 510, 512; Colby v. Varney, 98 N.H. 99, 103; Globe Ind. Co. v. Peckham, 97 N.H. 487, 490; 9 Schneider, Workmen's Compensation 1.

On October 15, 1954, when Laurence O. Brown died from injuries arising out of and in the course of his employment by Hubert Farms there arose in his dependents, the plaintiffs, a separate and distinct right of action from that which he acquired when he was injured on December 3, 1951. It follows that the settlement executed by him and not by his dependents on February 6, 1952, could only affect his right of action. Cripps' Case, 216 Mass. 586; 2 Larson, Workmen's Compensation, s. 64.00; Horovitz, Workmen's Compensation 332.

If this settlement could not affect plaintiffs' rights it follows that a failure on Laurence's part to apply for a modification thereof under Laws 1947, c. 266, s. 38, now RSA 281:40, could not do so. Nor did said section 38 impose a duty on the plaintiffs to apply for a modification of Laurence's settlement since that settlement was not related to their rights as dependents which arose over two years thereafter.

Since this section requires that modifications be sought "not later than one year after the date of the last payment fixed by the award" if it were held to apply here it would limit the right of dependents to deaths which occurred within that period, a provision which the Legislature could have enacted if it wanted such a limitation.

In view of the result the other exceptions need not be considered.

Exceptions overruled.

All concurred.


Summaries of

Brown v. Hubert

Supreme Court of New Hampshire Merrimack
Apr 27, 1956
100 N.H. 194 (N.H. 1956)
Case details for

Brown v. Hubert

Case Details

Full title:RUTH LILLIAN BROWN a. v. ANNIE M. HUBERT a

Court:Supreme Court of New Hampshire Merrimack

Date published: Apr 27, 1956

Citations

100 N.H. 194 (N.H. 1956)
122 A.2d 260

Citing Cases

Viersen Cochran Drilling Company v. Ford

Numerous jurisdictions have considered the nature of an action by the claimant's dependents for death…

In re Collins

ement of his or her claim for compensation does not bar a claim for death benefits brought by a dependent if…