Summary
In Allstate Messenger Serv. v. James, 220 Va. 910, 266 S.E.2d 86 (1980), an employer contesting the Industrial Commission's award of death benefits to an illegitimate infant urged us to extend the evidentiary standards of proof of paternity defined in the child support statute, Code Sec. 20-61.1, to a workmen's compensation claim.
Summary of this case from Smith v. GivensOpinion
43938 Record No. 790736.
April 18, 1980
Present: All the Justices.
In Application by illegitimate child of decedent for award of death benefits under Workmen's Compensation Act (Code Sec. 65.1-65) acknowledgment only is required under Code Sec. 65.1-66 and the standards of Code Sec. 20-61.1 do not apply; evidence supports award by Industrial Commission to child.
(1) Workmen's Compensation — Death Benefits (Code Sec. 65.1-65) — Award to Illegitimate Child Controlled by "Acknowledgement" Requirement Under Code Sec. 65.1-66 and not Standards of Code Sec. 20-61.1.
(2) Workmen's Compensation — Death Benefits (Code Sec. 65.1-65) — Evidence Supports Award by Industrial Commission to Illegitimate Child.
Larry Williams, an employee of Allstate Messenger Service, was killed in an accident compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Brian James, claiming to be decedent's son, filed a claim for benefits. Decedent and the child's mother were never married and there was no documentary evidence of paternity. There was uncontradicted testimony that decedent acknowledged the child as his. The Industrial Commission entered an award for the child. On appeal, the employer claims there was insufficient evidence of paternity.
1. Subject to constitutional constraints, the legal status of illegitimate children is a matter of legislative prerogative. An acknowledged illegitimate child is entitled to death benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Code Sections 65.1-65; 65.1-66. The Act provides no test for determining paternity, other than acknowledgment, and the Court will not invade the legislative domain by applying the evidentiary standards of Code Sec. 20-61.1. These are inapplicable to the Workmen's Compensation Act.
2. Acknowledgment of paternity under Code Sec. 65.1-66 is a question of fact. Here the testimony supporting acknowledgment was uncontradicted and was credible. When there is no conflict of evidence and there is any credible evidence to support the findings of fact, the findings by the Industrial Commission are conclusive and binding.
Appeal from an award of the Industrial Commission of Virginia.
Affirmed.
John O. Easton (Carr, Jordan, Coyne Savits, on brief), for appellants.
Robert E. Wright for appellee.
The sole issue on this appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to support a finding by the Industrial Commission that a claimant of death benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Act was the child of the deceased employee.
Larry Williams, an employee of Allstate Messenger Service, was killed in an accident compensable under the Act. Purporting to be decedent's son, Brian Donnell James, an infant suing by his mother, Velma James, filed a claim for death benefits against Allstate and its insurer, Travelers Insurance Company. Decedent's mother withdrew her claim in favor of the infant's claim. The Deputy Commissioner denied Brian's claim on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he was the decedent's son. On review, the full Commission, with one Commissioner dissenting, reversed and entered an award for the infant.
No documentary evidence of paternity was introduced. As noted in the Commission's opinion, testimonial evidence showed that the decedent and the child's mother had never been married but had been " 'going together' during the period of the child's conception, birth and for some time thereafter"; that "the deceased brought the infant to his own mother's home"; that "he bought the infant things that he needed"; and that "the infant's facial features resemble those of the deceased." The decedent's mother testified that the decedent told her "that Brian was his. And I can see it." The child's maternal grandmother said that the decedent "told me he was the father of the child". The infant's mother stated that the decedent "told his mother, his family, and friends" that Brian was his son and that he provided support for the child "[w]henever he could." There was no evidence contradicting this testimony.
Code Sec. 65.1-66 provides that "an acknowledged illegitimate child" is one of the "persons . . . conclusively presumed to be dependents wholly dependent for support upon the deceased employee"; such a person is entitled to death benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Code Sec. 65.1-65. Except for the requirement of acknowledgement by the decedent, the Act prescribes no test for determining paternity. Allstate and Travelers urge us to apply the evidentiary standards defined in Code Sec. 20-61.1. Headlined "Support of children of unwed parents by father; evidence of paternity", that section provides that, before a court may order such support, there must be an admission of paternity in open court, an admission of paternity in writing under oath, or evidence of certain other conduct establishing paternity beyond a reasonable doubt.
"We do not agree that Code Sec. 20-61.1 is applicable . . . or that this section provides the only means by which paternity can be established." Brown v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 40, 43, 235 S.E.2d 325, 328 (1977). Subject to constitutional constraints, see generally Lalli v. Lalli, 439 U.S. 259 (1978); Weber v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co., 406 U.S. 164 (1972), the legal status of illegitimate children is properly a matter of legislative prerogative. When, as a public policy determination, the General Assembly decides to prescribe special evidentiary standards for proof of paternity, it knows how to do so. It did so when it enacted Code Sec. 20-61.1. It did so again when it transported the provisions of that section into Code Sec. 64.1-5.2 governing descent and distribution. Acts 1978, c. 647. It could have done the same for purposes of the Workmen's Compensation Act. It did not. For us to do so would be to rewrite Code Sec. 65.1-66. Declining the invitation to invade the legislative domain, we hold that the evidentiary requirements of Code Sec. 20-61.1 do not apply to the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Manifestly, the legislative purpose of the evidentiary standards in the child support and inheritance statutes is to minimize the risk of fraudulent paternity claims. We recognize a similar risk in filings under the Workmen's Compensation Act. "But a person who claims to be a decedent's child has the burden of proving that the decedent was his parent. We should not assume that finders of fact will not intelligently and justly resolve issues of paternity based upon the evidence before them and guided by the law." Carroll v. Sneed, 211 Va. 640, 643, 179 S.E.2d 620, 622 (1971).
The Act requires a claimant who purports to be an illegitimate child of an employee who has suffered a compensable accident to prove the employee's acknowledgement of paternity. Whether there has been such an acknowledgement is a question of fact. Here, three witnesses testified that the decedent acknowledged Brian as his son. Their testimony was uncontradicted, and we cannot say it was incredible. We have long held that, upon review of the Commission's decision, "when there is no conflict of evidence, then, if there be any [credible] evidence to support the findings of fact, such findings are conclusive and binding." National Surety Co. v. Rountree, 152 Va. 150, 159, 147 S.E. 537, 539 (1929).
The Commission's award will be affirmed.
Affirmed.