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

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 342.200 (2026)

Certain defects or failure to give notice not to bar compensation

✓ 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 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. Want of notice or delay in giving notice shall not be a bar to proceedings under this chapter if it is shown that the employer, his agent or representative had knowledge of the injury or that the delay or failure to give notice was occasioned by mistake or other reasonable cause. Effective: October 1, 1942. History: Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 4917.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1949–2021 · leading case: Granger v. Louis Trauth Dairy, 329 S.W.3d 296 (Ky. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Granger v. Louis Trauth Dairy, 329 S.W.3d 296 (Ky. 2010). · cites it 16× “Appealing, the claimant asserts that the ALJ erred by failing to find under KRS 342.200 that a mistake or reasonable cause excused his delay in giving notice.”
Trico Cnty. Dev. & Pipeline v. Smith, 289 S.W.3d 538 (Ky. 2008). · cites it 10× “190 require notice of a work-related accident to be given to the employer, in writing, KRS 342.200 excuses a delay in doing so if "the employer, his agent or representative had knowledge of the injury.”
Newberg v. Hudson, 838 S.W.2d 384 (Ky. 1992). · cites it 5× “185 to KRS 342.200, of a work-related injury causing an employee’s absence from work for more than one day.”
Smith v. Cardinal Constr. Co., 13 S.W.3d 623 (Ky. 2000). · cites it 3× “KRS 342.200 provides that an inaccuracy in complying with the requirements of KRS 342.”
Newberg v. Slone, 846 S.W.2d 694 (Ky. 1992). · cites it 3× “Claimant testified again later that he quit, was not laid off, drew unemployment from August to March, and did not tell Enduro he could not work until April, 1987, when he found out.”
Harlan Fuel Co. v. Burkhart, 296 S.W.2d 722 (Ky. Ct. App. 1956). · cites it 3× “However, KRS 342.200 applies to silicosis cases and it provides in part as follows : “Want of notice or delay in giving notice shall not be a bar to proceedings under this chapter if it is shown that the employer, his agent or representative had knowledge of the injury or that…”
Coslow v. Gen. Elec. Co., 877 S.W.2d 611 (Ky. 1994). “” Due to this ambiguous language, the Court had latitude to construe “as soon as practicable,” taking into consideration KRS 342.200 which expressly excuses failure to give notice upon a showing of reasonable cause.”
Marc Blackburn Brick Co. v. Yates, 424 S.W.2d 814 (Ky. Ct. App. 1968). · cites it 2× “Liberal legislative intent in the matter of time required in the giving of notice of an injury is further demonstrated by KRS 342.200, which reads as follows: "The notice shall not be invalid or insufficient because of any inaccuracy in complying with KRS 342.”
Blue Diamond Coal Co. v. Stepp, 445 S.W.2d 866 (Ky. Ct. App. 1969). “2d 921 , in which the court purported to find such meaning in KRS 342.200. Upon present careful study of that statute we do not find it to support the proposition.”
Proctor & Gamble Mfg. Co. v. Little, 357 S.W.2d 866 (Ky. Ct. App. 1962). · cites it 2× “185 requires “notice of the accident * * * as soon as practical after the happening thereof”.”
Peabody Coal Co. v. Harp, 351 S.W.2d 170 (Ky. Ct. App. 1961). “Burkhart, Ky., 296 S.W.2d 722 . Such a determination is reflected by the findings of the board in the instant case and is supported by the record.”
Old King Mining Co. v. Mullins, 252 S.W.2d 871 (Ky. Ct. App. 1952). “It is argued, under this topic, that the file in the above case shows that in a claim filed by appellee in 1942, he complained of impairment to his vision, pain in the neck, and hallucinations in some form which interfered with his sleep.”
Show all 33 citing 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.