Opinion
43012.
ARGUED SEPTEMBER 11, 1967.
DECIDED SEPTEMBER 29, 1967.
Workmen's compensation. Worth Superior Court. Before Judge Gray.
Perry, Walters, Langstaff Lippitt, Thad W. Gibson, for appellants.
Murphy Rogers, McDonald Mills, J. C. McDonald, for appellees.
In a workmen's compensation case the question of dependency is one of fact, to be determined according to the circumstances of each case, and where the board makes such determination its finding will not be disturbed if there is any evidence to support it.
ARGUED SEPTEMBER 11, 1967 — DECIDED SEPTEMBER 29, 1967.
This is a workmen's compensation case arising out of the accidental death of Ralph Tucker, which occurred on June 29, 1965. The only issue in dispute was whether his mother, father and their minor children were dependents of the deceased.
The evidence disclosed in part that: the deceased's father, Lee Tucker, was totally disabled and had been since 1960; Lee Tucker had a sharecropper's contract with Ralph Morgan, but was dependent on the deceased and his other children to perform the duties on the farm; the farm had four acres of tobacco, twenty-two acres of peanuts, fourteen acres of cotton and twenty-five to thirty acres of corn; the deceased was the oldest of the children; the deceased planted the crop in 1965 and performed other duties about the farm; the deceased was the only child who was not in school until the latter part of May 1965; that the other children were ages 18, 14, 12 and 10; the other children helped with the farm duties when they were not in school; the deceased went to work for Goodman's Welding Repair Shop in April, 1965, at a wage of $75 per week; the deceased worked on the farm afternoons after he returned from his employment and also on some Saturdays; he contributed $15 per week to the family in addition to the services he performed.
Ralph Morgan testified in part that: he had a sharecropper's agreement with Lee Tucker on a farm Morgan owned; he knew Lee Tucker was disabled and could not perform the manual work; that he would not have made the contract with Lee Tucker if the deceased had not been there to do the work; that, until the time of his death, the deceased performed approximately two days work per week on the farm after he was employed at Goodman's; he considered the deceased an expert in that type of farming because he knew how to "set up" the tractor; "He dipped his own guano and own seed. He didn't have to have an extra man in the field with him. He could take it out and go there and plant you twenty-five acres a day." He further testified that the deceased's work on the farm was worth $25 per day; that he had paid tractor drivers $25 per day to work on his farm.
The deputy director entered an award granting compensation to the claimants which was affirmed on appeal to the full board. Upon appeal to the superior court the award of the board was affirmed and the case is here for review.
In a workmen's compensation case the question of dependency is one of fact, to be determined according to the circumstances of each case. This determination is made after considering "the amounts, frequency, and continuity of actual contributions of cash or supplies, the needs of the claimants, and the legal and moral obligation of the employee." Ga. Power c. Co. v. Patterson, 46 Ga. App. 7, 8 ( 166 S.E. 255). Such contributions may have been made by the deceased in the form of services rendered to the claimants. Maryland Cas. Co. v. Bartlett, 37 Ga. App. 777 ( 142 S.E. 189).
While there was some conflict in the record as to whether at the time of the deceased's death the claimants were as dependent on the deceased as they were prior to his death, an award of the Workmen's Compensation Board will not be disturbed where there is any evidence to support it. The weight and credit to be given the testimony of the witnesses, and conflicts in evidence are for determination by the board. Wilson v. Aragon Mills, 110 Ga. App. 392 ( 138 S.E.2d 596).
In view of the evidence and the authorities herein cited, the court did not err in affirming the award.
Judgment affirmed. Jordan, P. J., and Deen, J., concur.