Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 342
Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 342.010 (2026)

Repealed, effective June 1, 1973

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Catchline at repeal: "Employer" includes municipalities. History: Repealed 1972 Ky. Acts ch. 78, sec. 36, effective January 1, 1973. -- Amended 1964 Ky. Acts ch. 192, sec 3, effective, August 1, 1964. -- Amended 1956 Ky. Acts ch. 155, sec. 1. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 4881.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1943–2022 · leading case: Osborne v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Pub. Saf., 353 S.W.2d 373 (Ky. Ct. App. 1962).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Osborne v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Pub. Saf., 353 S.W.2d 373 (Ky. Ct. App. 1962). · cites it 5× “The Department had elected to operate under the Workmen’s Compensation Act by virtue of KRS 342.010, which reads in part as follows: “ ‘Employer’ as used in this chapter includes municipal corporations and any subdivision or corporation thereof.”
Commonwealth v. McCoun, 313 S.W.2d 585 (Ky. Ct. App. 1958). · cites it 2× “The reason was that there had been enacted a general law, KRS 342.010, providing that any department of the state government may elect to accept the provisions of and operate under the Workmen's Compensation Act.”
Mitee Enter. v. Yates, 865 S.W.2d 654 (Ky. 1993). “Because KRS 342.010(1), as interpreted herein, allows an employer to avoid those medical bills which it can prove were: 1.”
Dep't of Conservation v. Sowders, 244 S.W.2d 464 (Ky. Ct. App. 1951). “KRS 342.010 provides that any department of state government may, if the head of such department so elects, accept the provisions of and operate under the Compensation Act.”
Kentucky Associated Gen. Contractors Self-Ins. Fund v. Lowther, 330 S.W.3d 456 (Ky. 2010). “Although KRS 342.010(1) gives an injured worker great latitude in selecting a treating physician and course of treatment, the worker’s freedom is not unfettered.”
Mine Serv. Co. v. Green, 265 S.W.2d 944 (Ky. Ct. App. 1954). · cites it 2× “" By KRS 342.010 the meaning of the word was extended to include state and municipal governments.”
City of Bellevue v. Hall, 174 S.W.2d 24 (Ky. Ct. App. 1943). “Further, the allegation of the petition, that the defendant city, in whose employ he was working at the time injured, was an "employer” within the meaning of the provisions of the Kentucky Workmen’s Compensation Act (Section 4881, Kentucky Statutes — -KRS 342.010) .and as such…”
Highland Co., Inc. v. Goben, 175 S.W.2d 124 (Ky. Ct. App. 1943). “Plaintiff will also be awarded the amount of doctor and hospital bills he has actually expended as a result of this injury not to exceed, however, the sum of Two Hundred ($200.”
Tracy Scott Toler v. Oldham Cnty. Fiscal Court (Ky. 2022). · cites it 2× “Specifically, KRS 342.010(4) states: In the absence of designation of a managed health care system by the employer, the employee may select medical providers to treat his injury or occupational disease.”
Ky. Associated Gen. Contractors v. Lowther, 330 S.W.3d 456 (Ky. 2010). “Although KRS 342.010(1) gives an injured worker great latitude in selecting a treating physician and course of treatment, the worker's freedom is not unfettered.”
Smith v. Vanover, 264 S.W.2d 884 (Ky. Ct. App. 1954). “She was entitled to the benefits of the Workmen’s Compensation Act KRS ,342.010 et seq., and there is evidence that she made a settlement under which she received about $6,000 in cash.”
United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Alexander, 494 S.W.2d 522 (Ky. Ct. App. 1973). “The city had made an election under KRS 342.010 to operate under the Workmen’s Compensation Act except as to members of the police and fire departments (for whom disability benefits were payable under certain conditions out of pension funds).”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 342.010(1) — 3 cases
Mitee Enter. v. Yates, 865 S.W.2d 654 (Ky. 1993). “Because KRS 342.010(1), as interpreted herein, allows an employer to avoid those medical bills which it can prove were: 1.”
Kentucky Associated Gen. Contractors Self-Ins. Fund v. Lowther, 330 S.W.3d 456 (Ky. 2010). “Although KRS 342.010(1) gives an injured worker great latitude in selecting a treating physician and course of treatment, the worker’s freedom is not unfettered.”
Ky. Associated Gen. Contractors v. Lowther, 330 S.W.3d 456 (Ky. 2010). “Although KRS 342.010(1) gives an injured worker great latitude in selecting a treating physician and course of treatment, the worker's freedom is not unfettered.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 342.010(4) — 1 case
Tracy Scott Toler v. Oldham Cnty. Fiscal Court (Ky. 2022). “Specifically, KRS 342.010(4) states: In the absence of designation of a managed health care system by the employer, the employee may select medical providers to treat his injury or occupational disease.”
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.