Ala. Code
Code of Alabama

Ala. Code § 25-5-62 (2026)

Total Dependents - Designated; Order of Compensation.

✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaAla. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A wife, child, husband, mother, father, grandmother, grandfather, sister, brother, mother-in-law or father-in-law who was wholly supported by the deceased workman at the time of his death and for a reasonable period of time immediately prior thereto shall be considered his total dependents, and payment of compensation shall be made to such total dependents in the order named.

(Acts 1919, No. 245, p. 206; Code 1923, §7553; Code 1940, T. 26, §281.)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1979–2014 · leading case: Banks v. Premier Serv. Co., 184 So. 3d 370 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Banks v. Premier Serv. Co., 184 So. 3d 370 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014). · cites it 10× “This court further analyzed whether any of the *375 children would be entitled to death benefits under any of the provisions- of the Act: “The children assert that they are entitled to ’death benefits pursuant to Ala. Code 1975, § 25-5-62. They urge this court to interpret that…”
Blansit v. Cornelius & Rush Coal Co., 380 So. 2d 854 (Ala. Civ. App. 1979). · cites it 17× “Put another way, each class of beneficiaries of workmen’s compensation benefits, as designated by § 25-5-62 takes in the order set out in the statute to the exclusion of after named beneficiaries.”
Johnson v. Huxford Pole & Timber Co., 983 So. 2d 1133 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007). · cites it 5× “who was wholly supported by the deceased [employee] at the time of [the employee’s] death and for a reasonable period of time immediately prior thereto shall be considered [to be a] total depen-dente ].”
Jimmy Stein Motor Lines, Inc. v. Griffin, 643 So. 2d 1388 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994). · cites it 7× “Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-62, which designates the order of compensation, states that, among others, a wife or child “who was wholly supported by the deceased workman at the time of his death and for a reasonable period of time immediately prior thereto shall be considered his total…”
Goodloe v. Laroche Indus., Inc., 686 So. 2d 335 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996). · cites it 3× “§ 25-5-62, Ala.Code 1975. The son argues that he was entitled to receive death benefits as a partial dependent.”
Blansit v. Cornelius & Rush Coal Co., 380 So. 2d 859 (Ala. 1980). · cites it 5× “Put another way, each class of beneficiaries of workmen’s compensation benefits, as designated by § 25-5-62 takes in the order set out in the statute to the exclusion of after named beneficiaries.”
Innisfree Corp. v. Est. of Jourdan ex rel. Jourdan, 867 So. 2d 348 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003). “However, the estate contended that because *352 Jourdan was paying most of the household expenses at the time of his death, pursuant to § 25-5-62, Ala.Code 1975, Raymond was totally dependent on Jourdan for his own support; on that basis, the estate sought workers’ compensation…”
Hopper v. Hale Constr. Co., 571 So. 2d 1160 (Ala. Civ. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “Section 25-5-64, Code 1975, defines a partial dependent as “[a]ny member of a class named in section 25-5-62 who regularly derived part of his support from the earnings of the deceased workman at the time of his death and for a reasonable period of time immediately prior there-…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.