How have courts interpreted a claim for reimbursement from a Workmen's Compensation award made to a spouse by the absent parent?

We agree with respondent's analysis of these cases. In County of San Bernardino v. Simmons (1956) 46 Cal.2d 394, 296 P.2d 329, the court interpreted the statutory scheme relating to responsible relatives. Since the statutes provided specific procedures for recoupment, the county could not seek recoupment under the general provisions of law establishing a duty of support. In the instant action, the statutes provide for reimbursement. In Ogdon v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Board (1974) 11 Cal.3d 192, 113 Cal.Rptr. 206, 520 P.2d 1022, the court considered the [89 Cal.App.3d 698] claim of the county for reimbursement from a Workmen's Compensation award made to a disabled employee. Benefits had been paid to the employee for support of himself and his family. The court held that under California statutes no liability rests on the recipient of public assistance to reimburse the county for aid properly received. The court pointed out that specific statutory authority did exist for reimbursement from the absent parent for aid granted to a spouse or children, pursuant to section 11350 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. (Id., at p. 201, 113 Cal.Rptr. 206, 520 P.2d 1022.) County of Santa Barbara v. Flanders (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 486, 133 Cal.Rptr. 798 does not discuss equitable assignments, but does recognize that the county may proceed against the absent parent on either its own behalf or that of the parent. Thus, the cases are consistent with the decision in Shore.