In Department of Industrial Relations v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Tessler ) (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 72, the First District based its construction upon the following line of reasoning: "Section 4706.5 was enacted in 1972. As amended in 1973 and 1974 and as relevant, it now provides that: '(a) Whenever any fatal injury is suffered by an employee under such circumstances as to entitle him to compensation benefits, but for his death, and such employee does not leave surviving him any person entitled to a dependency death benefit, the employer shall pay a sum to the Department of Industrial Relations equal to the total dependency death benefit that would be payable to a surviving spouse with no dependent minor children....' "This statute makes no express disposition concerning the balance of the 'sum... equal to the total dependency death benefit that would be payable to a surviving spouse with no dependent minor children,' where as here only a portion of the sum is disbursed to a partial dependent . "But we nevertheless discern a patent legislative purpose that when a worker dies 'under such circumstances as to entitle him to compensation benefits, but for his death,' his employer will in any event be obligated at least in the amount of such a death benefit as 'would be payable to a surviving spouse with no dependent minor children.' In such cases the death benefits will be paid according to law to the workers' dependents, if any, and to the extent that such death benefits as would be payable to 'a surviving spouse with no dependent minor children' are not paid to the workers' dependents, they will be paid to the State pursuant to section 4706.5." ( Department of Industrial Relations v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Tessler), supra , 94 Cal.App.3d at pp. 78-79.) Moreover, since the applicant under the facts before it had entered into a $ 10,000 settlement with decedent's employer, the Tessler court felt that employer's retention of the undisbursed balance "would encourage an employer or its insurance carrier to settle doubtful death benefit claims for small amounts and then, arguing reasonable doubt as to liability, obtain confirmation of the Board, thus to avoid the full liability of section 4702." ( Tessler, supra , 94 Cal.App.3d at p. 79.) Finally, the court believed that its interpretation harmonized sections 4702 and 4706.5, promoting the legislative objectives of having employers pay death benefits to dependents and then paying any residual amounts to the state. ( Id ., at p. 80.)