Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 72-431 (2026)

Inheritability of scheduled or unscheduled income benefits.

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Inheritability of scheduled or unscheduled income benefits.

When an employee who has sustained disability compensable as a scheduled or unscheduled permanent disability less than total, and who has filed a valid claim in his lifetime, dies from causes other than the injury or occupational disease before the expiration of the compensable period specified, the income benefits specified and unpaid at the employee’s death, whether or not accrued or due at the time of his death, shall be paid, under an award made before or after such death, to and for the benefit of the persons within the classes at the time of death and in the proportions and upon the conditions specified in this subsection and in the order named:

(1) To the dependent widow or widower, if there is no child under the age of eighteen (18) or child incapable of self-support; or

(2) If there are both such a widow or widower and such a child or children, one-half (1/2) to such widow or widower and the other one-half (1/2) to such child or children; or

(3) If there is no such widow or widower but such a child or children, then to such child or children; or

(4) If there is no survivor in the above classes, then to the personal representative of the decedent.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1983–2016 · leading case: Mayer v. TPC Holdings, Inc., 370 P.3d 738 (Idaho 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Mayer v. TPC Holdings, Inc., 370 P.3d 738 (Idaho 2016). · cites it 94× “” I.C. § 72-431 (emphasis added). TPC could not explain why these words do not mean what they say.”

Palomo v. J.R. Simplot Co., 955 P.2d 1093 (Idaho 1998). · cites it 32× “Idaho Code § 72-431 Simplot contends that the Industrial Commission erred when it held that Palomo’s heirs are entitled to receive disability benefits from Simplot pursuant to I.”

Keith Mayer v. TPC Holdings, Inc. (Idaho 2016). · cites it 48× “” I.C. § 72-431 (emphasis added). TPC could not explain why these words do not mean what they say.”

Gomez v. Rangen's Inc., 670 P.2d 42 (Idaho 1983). · cites it 2× “The present permanent partial impairment and disability statute, Idaho Code § 72 — 430 likewise provides that the benefits therein set forth shall be paid in addition to other benefits payable during the period of recovery and likewise provides that said benefits shall not abate…”

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.