(1) The following persons shall be presumed to be wholly dependent upon a deceased employee:
(a) A surviving spouse upon a decedent whom the surviving spouse had not voluntarily abandoned at the time of the accident, or who having been abandoned by the decedent has not engaged in such conduct since his abandonment as would at common law constitute grounds justifying the abandonment of such wife by her husband or such husband by his wife;
(b) A child or children under the age of sixteen (16) years, or over sixteen (16) years if incapacitated from wage earning, upon the parent with whom such child or children are living, or by whom actually supported, or from whom support is legally required by judgment of a court, at the time of the accident.
(2) In all other cases the relation of dependency in whole or in part shall be determined in accordance with the facts of each case existing at the time of the accident.
(3) No person shall be considered a dependent in any degree unless he is living in the household of the employee at the time of the accident, or unless such person bears to the employee the relation of father, mother, husband, or wife, father-in-law or mother-in-law, grandfather or grandmother, child or grandchild, or brother or sister of the whole or half blood and is actually dependent. Effective: July 15, 1980 History: Amended 1980 Ky. Acts ch. 104, sec. 2, effective July 15, 1980. -- Amended 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 386, sec. 60. -- Amended 1952 Ky. Acts ch. 55, sec. 1, effective June 19, 1952; and ch. 182, sec. 3, effective June 30, 1952. -- Amended 1950 Ky. Acts ch. 187, sec. 2. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 4894.
Notes of Decisions
Brusman v. Newport Steel Corp., 17 S.W.3d 514 (Ky. 2000).
· cites it 15× “The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) awarded the children both death benefits and a 15% penalty; but, relying on KRS 342.075, denied Robert’s claim for widower’s benefits on grounds that he was neither actually nor presumptively dependent upon Donna at the time of her death.”
Reynolds Metal Co. v. Glass, 195 S.W.2d 280 (Ky. Ct. App. 1946).
· cites it 2× “” Subsection (1) (c) of section 342.075, KBS, says: “(c) A child or children under the age of sixteen years, or over sixteen years if incapacitated from wage-earning, upon the parent with whom such child or children are living or by whom actually supported at the time of the…”
Palmore v. Jones, 774 S.W.2d 434 (Ky. 1989).
· cites it 2× ““The Special Fund maintains that dependency, for a continuation award, must be determined at the onset of disability and maintains that KRS 342.075 and KRS 342.-316(10) provide for a general determination of dependency based upon the time of the .”
White v. Stewarts Dry Goods Co., 531 S.W.2d 504 (Ky. Ct. App. 1975).
· cites it 6× “KRS 342.075 set forth the rules for determination of dependency, including presumptions of dependency for widows, widowers or children under specified circumstances, a requirement of proof of actual dependency in absence of the presumption, and a condition of dependency, except…”
Ireland v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 462 S.W.2d 903 (Ky. Ct. App. 1971).
· cites it 2× “Under KRS 342.075 the surviving parents are not within the class presumed dependent upon a deceased employee, but are eligible as possible claimants “in accordance with the facts of each case existing at the time of the accident.”
Kenmont Coal Co. v. Clark, 171 S.W.2d 242 (Ky. Ct. App. 1948).
“The claimants are not within the class presumed dependent by section 4894 of the Kentucky Statutes (now KRS 342.075), but are within the class which may be shown as a matter of fact to to dependent.”
Birkenshaw v. Union Light, Heat & Power Co., 889 S.W.2d 804 (Ky. 1994).
“59; KRS 342.075. Kentucky and Ohio also provide that upon the remarriage of a dependent spouse, said spouse will receive an amount equal to two (2) years’ worth of compensation benefits in a lump sum.”
Columbus Mining Co. v. Pelfrey, 237 S.W.2d 847 (Ky. Ct. App. 1951).
“There is a stipulation in the, record showing both'the-employer and the employee were under the Act and that de-r ceased’s wages were sufficient to entitle any of his dependents to maximum compensation.”
Purex Corp./Ferry-Morse Seed Co. v. Bryant, 590 S.W.2d 334 (Ky. Ct. App. 1979).
“075(l)(a) state that a spouse shall be presumed to be dependent upon a deceased employee whom the spouse had not voluntarily abandoned at the time of the accident, or who having been abandoned by the decedent has not engaged in such conduct since the abandonment as would justify…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 342.075(1) — 3 cases
Brusman v. Newport Steel Corp., 17 S.W.3d 514 (Ky. 2000).
“The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) awarded the children both death benefits and a 15% penalty; but, relying on KRS 342.075, denied Robert’s claim for widower’s benefits on grounds that he was neither actually nor presumptively dependent upon Donna at the time of her death.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 342.075(2) — 2 cases
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 342.075(3) — 4 cases
Brusman v. Newport Steel Corp., 17 S.W.3d 514 (Ky. 2000).
“The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) awarded the children both death benefits and a 15% penalty; but, relying on KRS 342.075, denied Robert’s claim for widower’s benefits on grounds that he was neither actually nor presumptively dependent upon Donna at the time of her death.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 342.075(l)(a) — 2 cases
Purex Corp./Ferry-Morse Seed Co. v. Bryant, 590 S.W.2d 334 (Ky. Ct. App. 1979).
“075(l)(a) state that a spouse shall be presumed to be dependent upon a deceased employee whom the spouse had not voluntarily abandoned at the time of the accident, or who having been abandoned by the decedent has not engaged in such conduct since the abandonment as would justify…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 342.075(l)(b) — 2 cases
Brusman v. Newport Steel Corp., 17 S.W.3d 514 (Ky. 2000).
“The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) awarded the children both death benefits and a 15% penalty; but, relying on KRS 342.075, denied Robert’s claim for widower’s benefits on grounds that he was neither actually nor presumptively dependent upon Donna at the time of her death.”
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.