A widow, a widower and/or a child shall be conclusively presumed to be wholly dependent for support upon the deceased employee. In all other cases questions of dependency, in whole or in part shall be determined in accordance with the facts as the facts may be at the time of the accident, but no allowance shall be made for any payment made in lieu of board and lodging or services, and no compensation shall be allowed unless the dependency existed for a period of three months or more prior to the accident. If there is more than one person wholly dependent, the death benefit shall be divided among them, the persons partly dependent, if any, shall receive no part thereof. If there is no one wholly dependent, and more than one person partially dependent, the death benefit shall be divided among them according to the relative extent of their dependency.
The widow, or widower and all children of deceased employees shall be conclusively presumed to be dependents of deceased and shall be entitled to receive the benefits of this Article for the full periods specified herein. (1929, c. 120, s. 39.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
31
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1953–2022 · leading case:
Winstead v. Derreberry, 326 S.E.2d 66 (N.C. Ct. App. 1985).
Winstead v. Derreberry, 326 S.E.2d 66 (N.C. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 8× “” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-39 (1979) states that a: [C]hild shall be conclusively presumed to be wholly dependent for support upon the deceased employee.”
James ex rel. Edwards v. R.L. Dresser, Inc., 588 S.E.2d 511 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 14× “Goodrich did not qualify as a “widow” under N.C. Gen Stat. § 97-39, and that the stepchildren *396 were not “children” because they were not substantially dependent on decedent, as required by N.”
Rogers v. Univ. Motor Inn, 405 S.E.2d 770 (N.C. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 6× “§ 97-2(14). By statute, a widow is “conclusively presumed to be wholly dependent for support upon the deceased employee,” and shall receive benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act.”
Shealy v. Associated Transp., Inc., 114 S.E.2d 702 (N.C. 1960).
· cites it 5× “” G.S. 97-39. “A widow, a widower, and/or child shall be conclusively presumed to be wholly dependent for support upon the deceased employee.”
Carpenter v. Hawley, 281 S.E.2d 783 (N.C. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 2× “She therefore lost the conclusive presumption provided in G.S. 97-39 that she was wholly dependent upon her father for support.”
Allen v. Piedmont Transp. Servs., Inc., 447 S.E.2d 835 (N.C. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 4× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-39 provides that “a child shall be conclusively presumed to be wholly dependent for support upon the deceased employee.”
Est. of Bullock v. C.C. Mangum Co., 655 S.E.2d 869 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “*520 On 21 April 2005, the North Carolina Industrial Commission issued an Opinion and Award finding that the minor nephews were wholly and fully dependent on Bullock for support and that they were the only persons entitled to receive death benefits under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-39…”
Fields v. Hollowell & Hollowell, 78 S.E.2d 740 (N.C. 1953).
· cites it 3× “G.S. 97-39. The appellee, in brief filed in this Court, states that she “does not claim compensation as the common law wife of the deceased.”
West v. Hoyle's Tire & Axle, LLC (N.C. 2022).
· cites it 69× “HOYLE’S TIRE & AXLE, LLC 2022-NCSC-144 Opinion of the Court ¶1 The task here is to determine whether an individual who lacks a legal relationship with a deceased employee can be a dependent entitled to file a claim for death benefits under N.C.G.S. § 97-39 of the North Carolina…”
West v. Hoyle's Tire & Axle, LLC (N.C. 2022).
· cites it 69× “HOYLE’S TIRE & AXLE, LLC 2022-NCSC-144 Opinion of the Court ¶1 The task here is to determine whether an individual who lacks a legal relationship with a deceased employee can be a dependent entitled to file a claim for death benefits under N.C.G.S. § 97-39 of the North Carolina…”
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.