D. M. PHILLIPS, Sr., and SARAH HALE PHILLIPS, His Wife, Appellants,
A. O. SMITH CORPORATION, a Corporation, HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY COMPANY, a Corporation, and THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondents
APPEAL by Certiorari from an award of the Industrial Commission of Arizona. Award affirmed.
Messrs. Beumler & Graham, for Appellants.
Mr. Burt H. Clingan, for Respondent Industrial Commission of Arizona.
Mr. Terrence A. Carson (Mr. Emmet M. Barry, of Counsel), for Respondents A. O. Smith Corporation and Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company.
This is a petition by D. M. Phillips and Sarah Hale Phillips, his wife, for certiorari from an award of the Industrial Commission of Arizona. Petitioners' son, David M. Phillips, died as a result of an injury received while he was in the employ [39 Ariz. 578] of the A. O. Smith Corporation. The latter carried industrial insurance in the Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, and a hearing on the application of petitioners for an award was duly held, with all interested parties present or represented. The commission found the following facts:
"That the above named deceased while employed in the state of Arizona, by the above named
employer, sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his said employment on April 6, 1931, which injury proximately caused his death on said date. . . .
"That at said time the average monthly wage of said employee was $137.10.
"That said employee left surviving him and partially dependent upon him for support at the time of said injury, the following persons, who are residing in the United States and who are entitled to compensation on account of death of said employee:
"Sarah Hale Phillips, Mother, D. M. Phillips, Sr., Father."
In accordance with such findings petitioners were awarded the sum of $20.57 monthly during the dependency of both or either of them. Petitioners asked for a rehearing which was granted, and at such rehearing the award was affirmed.
There are two questions presented for our consideration. The first is, Does the evidence sustain the finding that petitioners were partially dependent as found by the commission, instead of wholly dependent, as claimed by petitioners? The testimony, viewed in the strongest manner in favor of the findings of respondent Industrial ...