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

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 342.190 (2026)

Notice and claim to be in writing -- Contents

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

The notice and claim shall be in writing. The notice shall contain the name and address of the employee, and shall state in ordinary language the time, place of occurrence, nature and cause of the accident, with names of witnesses, the nature and extent of the injury sustained, and the work or employment in which the employee was at the time engaged, and shall be signed by him or a person on his behalf, or, in case of his death, by any one (1) or more of his dependents or a person on their behalf. The notice may include the claim. Effective: October 1, 1942. History: Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 4915.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases, 1952–2018 · leading case: Trico Cnty. Dev. & Pipeline v. Smith, 289 S.W.3d 538 (Ky. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Trico Cnty. Dev. & Pipeline v. Smith, 289 S.W.3d 538 (Ky. 2008). · cites it 12× “185 and KRS 342.190 require notice of a work-related accident to be given to the employer, in writing, KRS 342.”
Granger v. Louis Trauth Dairy, 329 S.W.3d 296 (Ky. 2010). · cites it 8× “185, KRS 342.190, and KRS 342.200. When read in concert, KRS 342.”
Travelers Indem. Co. v. Reker, 100 S.W.3d 756 (Ky. 2003). · cites it 2× “It would also emasculate the long-standing legislative public policy embodied in KRS 342.190(1), disregard a clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary, and violate every rule of statutory construction applicable to the facts of this case.”
Smith v. Cardinal Constr. Co., 13 S.W.3d 623 (Ky. 2000). · cites it 5× “” KRS 342.190 indicates that the notice requirement includes, among other things, notice of the time, place, nature, and cause of the accident.”
Newberg v. Hudson, 838 S.W.2d 384 (Ky. 1992). · cites it 3× “KRS 342.190 provides that the notice shall be in writing, and KRS 342.”
Marc Blackburn Brick Co. v. Yates, 424 S.W.2d 814 (Ky. Ct. App. 1968). · cites it 2× “200, which reads as follows: "The notice shall not be invalid or insufficient because of any inaccuracy in complying with KRS 342.190 unless it is shown that the employer was in fact misled to his injury thereby.”
Newberg v. Slone, 846 S.W.2d 694 (Ky. 1992). “If a worker was not required to give notice until the procedural steps for filing an application were completed, for which there is a three-year time frame, the purposes behind the prompt notice requirement may not be fulfilled.”
Blue Diamond Coal Co. v. Stepp, 445 S.W.2d 866 (Ky. Ct. App. 1969). “This is the statute: “The notice shall not be invalid or insufficient because of any inaccuracy in complying with KRS 342.190 unless it is shown that the employer was in fact misled to his injury thereby.”
Proctor & Gamble Mfg. Co. v. Little, 357 S.W.2d 866 (Ky. Ct. App. 1962). · cites it 2× “The evidence shows that even doctors have difficulty diagnosing this ailment, and that the employee thought he was suffering from stomach trouble. KRS 342.”
Whittle v. Gen. Mills, Inc., 252 S.W.2d 55 (Ky. Ct. App. 1952). “200 which provides : “The notice shall not be invalid or insufficient because of any inaccuracy in complying with KRS 342.190 unless it is shown that the employer was in fact misled to his injury thereby.”
Reliance Diecasting Co. v. Freeman, 471 S.W.2d 311 (Ky. Ct. App. 1971). “185 that notice of “accident” be given as soon as practical has been construed, in light of KRS 342.190, to mean that notice of injury must be given, and this means notice of “the specific injury for which the employee is claiming compensation.”
Commonwealth, Cabinet for Human Resources v. Riley, 921 S.W.2d 616 (Ky. 1996). “On December 15, 1989, Riley filed a written claim for compensation which was sufficient to comply with KRS 342.190. Thus, as of that date, the statute of limitations was tolled.”
Show all 21 citing cases →
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 342.190(1) — 1 case
Travelers Indem. Co. v. Reker, 100 S.W.3d 756 (Ky. 2003). “It would also emasculate the long-standing legislative public policy embodied in KRS 342.190(1), disregard a clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary, and violate every rule of statutory construction applicable to the facts of this case.”
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.