C.F.R. » Title 20 » CHAPTER VI—OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR › SUBCHAPTER B—FEDERAL COAL MINE HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT OF 1969, AS AMENDED › PART 725—CLAIMS FOR BENEFITS UNDER PART C OF TITLE IV OF THE FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT, AS AMENDED › Subpart B—Persons Entitled to Benefits, Conditions, and Duration of Entitlement

20 C.F.R. § 725.214

Determination of relationship; surviving spouse

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

An individual shall be considered to be the surviving spouse of a miner if:

(a) The courts of the State in which the miner was domiciled (see § 725.231) at the time of his or her death would find that the individual and the miner were validly married; or

(b) The courts of the State in which the miner was domiciled (see § 725.231) at the time of the miner's death would find that the individual was the miner's surviving spouse; or

(c) Under State law, such individual would have the right of the spouse to share in the miner's intestate personal property; or

(d) Such individual went through a marriage ceremony with the miner, resulting in a purported marriage between them which, but for a legal impediment (see § 725.230), would have been a valid marriage, unless such individual entered into the purported marriage with knowledge that it was not a valid marriage, or if such individual and the miner were not living in the same household at the time of the miner's death.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1993–2001 · leading case: Nat'l Mining Ass'n v. Chao, 160 F. Supp. 2d 47 (D.D.C. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nat'l Mining Ass'n v. Chao, 160 F. Supp. 2d 47 (D.D.C. 2001). “20 C.F.R. § 725.214 (d): This rule provides the criteria for determining when a claimant is a surviving spouse.”
Charles v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, 1 F.3d 251 (4th Cir. 1993). “…but, because Gladys is not pursuing her survivor's claim here, we need not rule upon this issue today. . See 20 C.F.R. §§ 725.214 and 725.216.”
Cole v. Dowcp (4th Cir. 1996). “He further found that although Naomi entered into a legiti- mate marriage ceremony with Robert in 1973 without any prior knowledge of Robert's first marriage, and that such marriage would have been valid if not for the prior marriage, Naomi was not eligible for benefits because…”
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.