-- Compensation not payable if employee falsely represents physical condition
or medical history at time of employment.
(1) If an accident is caused in any degree by the intentional failure of the employer to
comply with any specific statute or lawful administrative regulation made
thereunder, communicated to the employer and relative to installation or
maintenance of safety appliances or methods, the compensation for which the
employer would otherwise have been liable under this chapter shall be increased
thirty percent (30%) in the amount of each payment. If an accident is caused in any
degree by the intentional failure of the employee to use any safety appliance
furnished by the employer or to obey any lawful and reasonable order or
administrative regulation of the commissioner or the employer for the safety of
employees or the public, the compensation for which the employer would otherwise
have been liable under this chapter shall be decreased fifteen percent (15%) in the
amount of each payment.
(2) No compensation shall be payable for work-related injuries if the employee at the
time of entering the employment of the employer by whom compensation would
otherwise be payable falsely represents, in writing, his or her physical condition or
medical history, if all of the following factors are present:
(a) The employee has knowingly and willfully made a false representation as to
his or her physical condition or medical history;
(b) The employer has relied upon the false representation, and this reliance was a
substantial factor in the hiring; and
(c) There is a causal connection between the false representation and the injury
for which compensation has been claimed.
Effective: July 15, 2010
History: Amended 2010 Ky. Acts ch. 24, sec. 1794, effective July 15, 2010. --
Amended 2000 Ky. Acts ch. 514, sec. 38, effective July 14, 2000. -- Amended 1994
Ky. Acts ch. 181, Part 13, sec. 62, effective April 4, 1994. -- Amended 1972 Ky.
Acts ch. 78, sec. 26. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1,
1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 4910.
Notes of Decisions
Apex Mining v. Blankenship, 918 S.W.2d 225 (Ky. 1996).
· cites it 23× “) whether, upon proof of the requisite facts, an injured worker is entitled to receive the 15% penalty authorized by KRS 342.165 in addition to income benefits for total disability, and 2.”
Whittaker v. McClure, 891 S.W.2d 80 (Ky. 1995).
· cites it 19× “KRS 342.165. Claimant was awarded a 100% disability, with 4% being designated as prior, active, and noncompensable.”
Realty Improvement Co., Inc. v. Raley, 194 S.W.3d 818 (Ky. 2006).
· cites it 14× “OPINION OF THE COURT Affirming a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, the Court of Appeals determined that KRS 342.165(1) permits the benefit paid under KRS 342.”
Burton v. Foster Wheeler Corp., 72 S.W.3d 925 (Ky. 2002).
· cites it 6× “The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that, although Appellant sustained a mus-culoskeletal injury, he did not sustain a brain injury of appreciable proportions and that his claim under KRS 342.165 should be denied because he had failed to point to any specific statute…”
Abel Verdon Constr. v. Rivera, 348 S.W.3d 749 (Ky. 2011).
· cites it 8× “Although the Court of Appeals determined subsequently that the Board erred by reversing the finding that Wirth was not an expert, the court determined that KRS 342.165(1) did not require expert testimony; found that the Board did not err by remanding for additional consideration…”
Hornback v. Hardin Mem'l Hosp., 411 S.W.3d 220 (Ky. 2013).
· cites it 15× “A violation of that statute can satisfy the requirement in the weekly benefit enhancement provided in KRS 342.165 that a “specific statute” was intentionally ignored.”
AIG/AIU Ins. Co. v. South Akers Mining Co., 192 S.W.3d 687 (Ky. 2006).
· cites it 9× “It was later found that the accident resulted from the employer’s intentional violation of several mine safety statutes and regulations and that his surviving spouse and minor child were entitled to increased benefits under KRS 342.165(1). Affirming decisions by an…”
Chaney v. Dags Branch Coal Co., 244 S.W.3d 95 (Ky. 2008).
· cites it 10× “OPINION OF THE COURT KRS 342.165(1) provides a 30% increase in compensation if an accident results in any degree from an employer’s intentional failure to comply with any specific safety statute or regulation.”
Cabinet for Workforce Dev. v. Cummins, 950 S.W.2d 834 (Ky. 1997).
· cites it 12× “031, part of the Kentucky Occupational Safety and Health Act (KOSHA), contributed to his injuries and that, in addition to his award of income benefits, he was entitled to a 15% penalty pursuant to KRS 342.165. Claimant argued that KRS 338.”
Fresenius Med. Care Holdings, Inc. v. Mitchell, 507 S.W.3d 15 (Ky. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 6× “The second error alleged by Fre-senius is the Board’s affirmation of the ALJ’s finding that Mitchell’s alleged failure to wear a seatbelt did not merit a reduction in benefits under KRS 342.165(1). 1. THE BOARD EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY IN REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE ALJ ON THE…”
Goodyear Atomic Corp. v. Miller, 486 U.S. 174 (1988).
· cites it 2× “For the present versions of these laws, see Ky. Rev. Stat. § 342.165 (1983); Mo. Rev.”
Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Gov't v. Offutt, 11 S.W.3d 598 (Ky. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 7× “*599 As a result of her injuries, Offutt filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits including enhanced benefits pursuant to KRS 342.165 on the basis of an alleged safety violation.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 342.165(1) — 29 cases
Realty Improvement Co., Inc. v. Raley, 194 S.W.3d 818 (Ky. 2006).
“OPINION OF THE COURT Affirming a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, the Court of Appeals determined that KRS 342.165(1) permits the benefit paid under KRS 342.”
Abel Verdon Constr. v. Rivera, 348 S.W.3d 749 (Ky. 2011).
“Although the Court of Appeals determined subsequently that the Board erred by reversing the finding that Wirth was not an expert, the court determined that KRS 342.165(1) did not require expert testimony; found that the Board did not err by remanding for additional consideration…”
AIG/AIU Ins. Co. v. South Akers Mining Co., 192 S.W.3d 687 (Ky. 2006).
“It was later found that the accident resulted from the employer’s intentional violation of several mine safety statutes and regulations and that his surviving spouse and minor child were entitled to increased benefits under KRS 342.165(1). Affirming decisions by an…”
Chaney v. Dags Branch Coal Co., 244 S.W.3d 95 (Ky. 2008).
“OPINION OF THE COURT KRS 342.165(1) provides a 30% increase in compensation if an accident results in any degree from an employer’s intentional failure to comply with any specific safety statute or regulation.”
Hornback v. Hardin Mem'l Hosp., 411 S.W.3d 220 (Ky. 2013).
“A violation of that statute can satisfy the requirement in the weekly benefit enhancement provided in KRS 342.165 that a “specific statute” was intentionally ignored.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 342.165(2) — 8 cases
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 342.165(2)(b) — 1 case
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 342.165(2)(c) — 4 cases
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.