The opinion
O’CONNELL, J.,
dissenting.
I would adopt the dissenting opinion of Mr. Callahan, Chairman of the Workmen’s Compensátion Board, construing ORS 656.204(8) to include as a beneficiary a child over 18 years of age if the child is an invalid. Mr. Callahan expressed his views in the following opinion: ’
“Janice Leech is not a dependent under ORS *357 656.002(10) for the reason that in this case the deceased workman left a widow.
“The Hearing Officer places an erroneous interpretation on ORS 656.204(8) when, regarding the word ‘continue,’ he states that payments of compensation must have previously commenced. There is no requirement that payments of compensation must have begun prior to reaching age 18, and to construe such a requirement would nullify the basic purposes of the Workmen’s Compensation Law.
“Children under age 18 are beneficiaries whether such a child is an invalid or not. There is no need to have a special provision for an invalid child under age 18.
“Subsection (8) is for the purpose of making a child over age 18 a beneficiary, if the child is an invalid, and as long as the child continues to be an invalid. The payment to him shall continue while he remains an invalid.
“Janice Leech, a 28 year old invalid child of Willis E. Leech, a deceased workman, is a beneficiary under Oregon Workmen’s Compensation Law and entitled to compensation as a child while she remains an invalid.”
I might add that it is not reasonable to assume that the legislature intended the construction put upon the Act by the opinion of the majority because leaving a widow or other children under 18 bears no relevance to whether a dependent child over 18 should be entitled to benefits. The judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.
Sloan and Holman, JJ., join in this dissent.