Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 342.186 (2026)

Repealed, 1980

✓ 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Catchline at repeal: Notifying employe of statute of limitations History: Repealed 1980 Ky. Acts ch. 104, sec. 24, effective July 15, 1980. -- Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 93, sec. 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2022 · leading case: Peach v. 21 Brands Distillery, 580 S.W.2d 235 (Ky. Ct. App. 1979).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Peach v. 21 Brands Distillery, 580 S.W.2d 235 (Ky. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 13× “First, he argues that his claim is not barred by the limitation, because the employer failed to notify him thirty days before the expiration of the time limit as required by KRS 342.186, which was enacted after the alleged injury but before the end of the two-year limit.”

Boothe v. Special Fund, 668 S.W.2d 66 (Ky. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 12× “The issue is whether KRS 342.186 bars the defense of the statute of limitations when that stat: ute was repealed effective prior to the claimant’s filing his action but subsequent to his injury.”

Newberg v. Hudson, 838 S.W.2d 384 (Ky. 1992). · cites it 7× “The worker argued that the statute of limitations had been tolled by the employer’s failure to comply with the notice requirement of now-repealed KRS 342.186. 3 The court held that since the employer paid neither medical payments nor disability payments, it was not required…”

Lanier v. Commonwealth, Fish & Wildlife Div., 605 S.W.2d 18 (Ky. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 3× “It was determined by the Workmen’s Compensation Board that the employer did not comply with KRS 342.186, which statute was in effect at the time of the injury.”

City of Frankfort v. Rogers, 765 S.W.2d 579 (Ky. Ct. App. 1988). “It held that when an employer failed to comply with KRS 342.186 (repealed Kentucky Acts 1980) which required the employer to notify the injured employee of the applicable statute of limitation, that employer is estopped from asserting limitation as a defense.”

Wells v. Paris, 640 S.W.2d 822 (Ky. 1982). · cites it 10× “Paris responds that he was not given the required notice by his former employer of the running of the statute-of-limitations period (KRS 342.186). Paris contends that the three-year statute of limitations did not run against him by reason of his failure to receive the required…”

Palmore v. Transp. Cabinet, 764 S.W.2d 637 (Ky. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 5× “KRS 342.186, which was in effect in 1979, required an employer to give an employee notice of the expiration of the time for filing a claim 30 days before the expiration date.”

Mitchell v. Union Carbide Corp., 655 S.W.2d 17 (Ky. Ct. App. 1983). “Consequently, it was not required, under the language of KRS 342.186, to give the appellant any notice of the statute of limitations.”

Samantha Killary v. Linda Thompson (Ky. Ct. App. 2022). “However, in 1974 an amended version of KRS 342.186 went into effect which imposed an additional duty of notification on the employer.”

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.