Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-210 (2026)

Dependents - Compensation payments

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Amended by 2023 Tenn. Acts, ch. 158, s 5, eff. 7/1/2023.

Amended by 2023 Tenn. Acts, ch. 158, s 4, eff. 7/1/2023.

Amended by 2023 Tenn. Acts, ch. 158, s 3, eff. 7/1/2023.

Amended by 2023 Tenn. Acts, ch. 158, s 2, eff. 7/1/2023.

Acts 1919, ch. 123, § 30; 1923, ch. 84, § 1; Shan. Supp., § 3608a181; Acts 1927, ch. 40, § 3; Code 1932, § 6883; Acts 1941, ch. 90, § 8; 1943, ch. 110, § 1; 1947, ch. 139, § 10; 1949, ch. 277, § 7; C. Supp. 1950, § 6883; Acts 1953, ch. 111, § 6; 1955, ch. 182, §§ 9-16; 1957, ch. 270, §§ 7, 8; 1959, ch. 172, §§ 10, 11; 1963, ch. 362, § 1; 1965, ch. 158, § 1; 1967, ch. 313, §§ 1, 2; 1969, ch. 196, §§ 1, 2; 1971, ch. 134, §§ 1, 2, 4; 1972, ch. 699, § 3; 1973, ch. 379, § 9; 1974, ch. 617, §§ 6, 7; 1975, ch. 86, §§ 6, 7; 1977, ch. 354, § 6; 1979, ch. 365, § 6; 1979, ch. 370, § 1; impl. am. Acts 1980, ch. 534, § 1; Acts 1980, ch. 607, §§ 9, 10, 11; 1981, ch. 333, §§ 9, 10; 1982, ch. 880, §§ 9, 10; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 50-1013; Acts 1985, ch. 393, § 13; 2013 , ch. 289, § 56.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: Fusner v. Coop Constr. Co., 211 S.W.3d 686 (Tenn. 2007).
Fusner v. Coop Constr. Co., 211 S.W.3d 686 (Tenn. 2007). · cites it 27× “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-210 (c) (1999). By contrast, Ms.”
Jones v. Gen. Accident Ins. Co. of Am., 856 S.W.2d 133 (Tenn. 1993). · cites it 30× “In this workers’ compensation death case, we are asked to decide (1) whether workers’ compensation death benefits payable to a dependent under T.C.A. § 50-6-210 are limited to 400 weeks and (2) whether such benefits can be paid in a lump sum.”
Brown v. Campbell Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 915 S.W.2d 407 (Tenn. 1995). · cites it 2× “benefits contained in Tennessee Code Annotated Section 50-6-242; the 260 week limit on permanent total disability for injuries which occur after age sixty in Tennessee Code Annotated Section 50-6-207(4); the cap of 400 weeks on temporary partial disability in Tennessee Code…”
Clayton v. Cookeville Energy, Inc., 824 S.W.2d 167 (Tenn. 1992). · cites it 4× “It is also argued that the children have a potential future interest in the award because of the provisions of Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-210, which provide that upon the remarriage of a surviving spouse, the worker’s compensation benefits shall terminate, and if there is a child or…”
Dorothy G. Mackie v. Young Sales Corp., 51 S.W.3d 554 (Tenn. 2001). · cites it 2× “1993); see also Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-210 (1999). The workers’ compensation scheme does not require fault or negligence of the employer but, rather, is a complete substitute for any tort remedies that the employee may otherwise have had against the employer.”
Stack v. Sawmill, 724 S.W.2d 735 (Tenn. 1987). · cites it 7× “Stack is presumed to have been wholly dependent upon her husband under T.C.A., § 50-6-210(a)(1). In conclusion, we can find no material evidence supporting the Chancellor’s finding that Mrs.”
Jones v. D. Canale & Co., 652 S.W.2d 336 (Tenn. 1983). · cites it 2× “The learned chancellor denied plaintiff’s claim for worker’s compensation benefits on finding that plaintiff was not a “wife” as intended by the Legislature to be a “dependent” entitled to compensation pursuant to T.C.A. § 50-6-210 (formerly § 50-1013), which states in pertinent…”
West v. C.B. Ragland Co., 785 S.W.2d 351 (Tenn. 1990). · cites it 2× “It averred that it was paying the statutory weekly benefits provided for a widow in case of the death of her husband pursuant to T.C.A. § 50-6-210(e). The employer denied that future benefits should be commuted to a lump sum.”
Turnage, Clarence v. Dole Referigerating Co., Inc., 2019 TN WC 18 (Tenn. Ct. Work. Comp. Cl. 2019). · cites it 20× “Thus, they do not fit the obvious technical meaning of “child” as it is used in section 50-6-210(a).2 The Court therefore cannot conclusively presume them to be wholly dependent.”
Hensley, Jeffrey Chad Hensley (Deceased) v. Prof'l Pers. Servs., 2017 TN WC 21 (Tenn. Ct. Work. Comp. Cl. 2017). · cites it 11× “See Tenn. Code Ann. §50-6-210 (e)(l3) (2016).”
Summers, Sonney v. RTR Trans Servs., 2021 TN WC 213 (Tenn. Ct. Work. Comp. Cl. 2021). · cites it 8× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-210 (e)(8). If neither contingency occurs, the benefits continue until they total the “maximum total benefit,” which is equal to 450 weeks times the maximum compensation rate.”
Williams, Lawrence v. Methodist LeBonheur Healthcare, 2022 TN WC App. 15 (Tenn. Work. Comp. App. Bd. 2022). · cites it 8× “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-210 (e)(1) (2021) (emphasis added).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-210(E)(4) — 2 cases
Summers, Sonney v. RTR Trans Servs., 2021 TN WC 213 (Tenn. Ct. Work. Comp. Cl. 2021). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-210 (e)(8). If neither contingency occurs, the benefits continue until they total the “maximum total benefit,” which is equal to 450 weeks times the maximum compensation rate.”
Jeffrey Molands, Adm'r, the Est. of Marsha Molands v. Access Prog., 2025 TN WC 66 (Tenn. Ct. Work. Comp. Cl. 2025).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-210(a) — 2 cases
Turnage, Clarence v. Dole Referigerating Co., Inc., 2019 TN WC 18 (Tenn. Ct. Work. Comp. Cl. 2019). “Thus, they do not fit the obvious technical meaning of “child” as it is used in section 50-6-210(a).2 The Court therefore cannot conclusively presume them to be wholly dependent.”
Harlow v. Reliance Nat'l, 91 S.W.3d 243 (Tenn. 2002).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-210(a)(1) — 1 case
Stack v. Sawmill, 724 S.W.2d 735 (Tenn. 1987). “Stack is presumed to have been wholly dependent upon her husband under T.C.A., § 50-6-210(a)(1). In conclusion, we can find no material evidence supporting the Chancellor’s finding that Mrs.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-210(a)(2) — 2 cases
Hensley, Jeffrey Chad Hensley (Deceased) v. Prof'l Pers. Servs., 2017 TN WC 21 (Tenn. Ct. Work. Comp. Cl. 2017). “See Tenn. Code Ann. §50-6-210 (e)(l3) (2016).”
Turnage, Clarence v. Dole Referigerating Co., Inc., 2019 TN WC 18 (Tenn. Ct. Work. Comp. Cl. 2019). “Thus, they do not fit the obvious technical meaning of “child” as it is used in section 50-6-210(a).2 The Court therefore cannot conclusively presume them to be wholly dependent.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-210(a)(l) — 2 cases
Stack v. Sawmill, 724 S.W.2d 735 (Tenn. 1987). “Stack is presumed to have been wholly dependent upon her husband under T.C.A., § 50-6-210(a)(1). In conclusion, we can find no material evidence supporting the Chancellor’s finding that Mrs.”
Harlow v. Reliance Nat'l, 91 S.W.3d 243 (Tenn. 2002).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-210(c) — 4 cases
Fusner v. Coop Constr. Co., 211 S.W.3d 686 (Tenn. 2007). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-210 (c) (1999). By contrast, Ms.”
Turnage, Clarence v. Dole Referigerating Co., Inc., 2019 TN WC 18 (Tenn. Ct. Work. Comp. Cl. 2019). “Thus, they do not fit the obvious technical meaning of “child” as it is used in section 50-6-210(a).2 The Court therefore cannot conclusively presume them to be wholly dependent.”
Ayers, Cornell v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 2020 TN WC App. 8 (Tenn. Work. Comp. App. Bd. 2020).
Hensley, Jeffrey Chad Hensley (Deceased) v. Prof'l Pers. Servs., 2017 TN WC 21 (Tenn. Ct. Work. Comp. Cl. 2017). “See Tenn. Code Ann. §50-6-210 (e)(l3) (2016).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-210(d) — 2 cases
Fusner v. Coop Constr. Co., 211 S.W.3d 686 (Tenn. 2007). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-210 (c) (1999). By contrast, Ms.”
Turnage, Clarence v. Dole Referigerating Co., Inc., 2019 TN WC 18 (Tenn. Ct. Work. Comp. Cl. 2019). “Thus, they do not fit the obvious technical meaning of “child” as it is used in section 50-6-210(a).2 The Court therefore cannot conclusively presume them to be wholly dependent.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-210(e) — 3 cases
Fusner v. Coop Constr. Co., 211 S.W.3d 686 (Tenn. 2007). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-210 (c) (1999). By contrast, Ms.”
West v. C.B. Ragland Co., 785 S.W.2d 351 (Tenn. 1990). “It averred that it was paying the statutory weekly benefits provided for a widow in case of the death of her husband pursuant to T.C.A. § 50-6-210(e). The employer denied that future benefits should be commuted to a lump sum.”
Delashmit v. City of Covington, 889 S.W.2d 206 (Tenn. 1994).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-210(e)(1) — 4 cases
Jones v. Gen. Accident Ins. Co. of Am., 856 S.W.2d 133 (Tenn. 1993). “In this workers’ compensation death case, we are asked to decide (1) whether workers’ compensation death benefits payable to a dependent under T.C.A. § 50-6-210 are limited to 400 weeks and (2) whether such benefits can be paid in a lump sum.”
Summers, Sonney v. RTR Trans Servs., 2021 TN WC 213 (Tenn. Ct. Work. Comp. Cl. 2021). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-210 (e)(8). If neither contingency occurs, the benefits continue until they total the “maximum total benefit,” which is equal to 450 weeks times the maximum compensation rate.”
Williams, Lawrence v. Methodist LeBonheur Healthcare, 2022 TN WC App. 15 (Tenn. Work. Comp. App. Bd. 2022). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-210 (e)(1) (2021) (emphasis added).”
Harlow v. Reliance Nat'l, 91 S.W.3d 243 (Tenn. 2002).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-210(e)(10) — 5 cases
Jones v. Gen. Accident Ins. Co. of Am., 856 S.W.2d 133 (Tenn. 1993). “In this workers’ compensation death case, we are asked to decide (1) whether workers’ compensation death benefits payable to a dependent under T.C.A. § 50-6-210 are limited to 400 weeks and (2) whether such benefits can be paid in a lump sum.”
Fusner v. Coop Constr. Co., 211 S.W.3d 686 (Tenn. 2007). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-210 (c) (1999). By contrast, Ms.”
Luedtke v. Travelers Ins. Co., 100 S.W.3d 188 (Tenn. 2000).
Williams, Lawrence v. Methodist LeBonheur Healthcare, 2022 TN WC App. 15 (Tenn. Work. Comp. App. Bd. 2022). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-210 (e)(1) (2021) (emphasis added).”
Jeffrey Molands, Adm'r, the Est. of Marsha Molands v. Access Prog., 2025 TN WC 66 (Tenn. Ct. Work. Comp. Cl. 2025).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-210(e)(11) — 3 cases
Turnage, Clarence v. Dole Referigerating Co., Inc., 2019 TN WC 18 (Tenn. Ct. Work. Comp. Cl. 2019). “Thus, they do not fit the obvious technical meaning of “child” as it is used in section 50-6-210(a).2 The Court therefore cannot conclusively presume them to be wholly dependent.”
Vanderford, Michael v. E.S. Dockery Co., 2025 TN WC 26 (Tenn. Ct. Work. Comp. Cl. 2025).
Vanderford, Michael v. E.S. Dockery Co., 2025 TN WC 29 (Tenn. Ct. Work. Comp. Cl. 2025).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-210(e)(13) — 1 case
Clayton v. Cookeville Energy, Inc., 824 S.W.2d 167 (Tenn. 1992). “It is also argued that the children have a potential future interest in the award because of the provisions of Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-210, which provide that upon the remarriage of a surviving spouse, the worker’s compensation benefits shall terminate, and if there is a child or…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-210(e)(4) — 2 cases
Jones v. Gen. Accident Ins. Co. of Am., 856 S.W.2d 133 (Tenn. 1993). “In this workers’ compensation death case, we are asked to decide (1) whether workers’ compensation death benefits payable to a dependent under T.C.A. § 50-6-210 are limited to 400 weeks and (2) whether such benefits can be paid in a lump sum.”
West v. C.B. Ragland Co., 842 S.W.2d 251 (Tenn. 1992).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-210(e)(5) — 1 case
Turnage, Clarence v. Dole Referigerating Co., Inc., 2019 TN WC 18 (Tenn. Ct. Work. Comp. Cl. 2019). “Thus, they do not fit the obvious technical meaning of “child” as it is used in section 50-6-210(a).2 The Court therefore cannot conclusively presume them to be wholly dependent.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-210(e)(6) — 1 case
Fusner v. Coop Constr. Co., 211 S.W.3d 686 (Tenn. 2007). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-210 (c) (1999). By contrast, Ms.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-210(e)(8) — 1 case
Summers, Christine v. RTR Transp. Servs., 2021 TN WC App. 88 (Tenn. Work. Comp. App. Bd. 2021).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-210(e)(9) — 2 cases
Fusner v. Coop Constr. Co., 211 S.W.3d 686 (Tenn. 2007). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-210 (c) (1999). By contrast, Ms.”
Turnage, Clarence v. Dole Referigerating Co., Inc., 2019 TN WC 18 (Tenn. Ct. Work. Comp. Cl. 2019). “Thus, they do not fit the obvious technical meaning of “child” as it is used in section 50-6-210(a).2 The Court therefore cannot conclusively presume them to be wholly dependent.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-210(e)(l) — 2 cases
Jones v. Gen. Accident Ins. Co. of Am., 856 S.W.2d 133 (Tenn. 1993). “In this workers’ compensation death case, we are asked to decide (1) whether workers’ compensation death benefits payable to a dependent under T.C.A. § 50-6-210 are limited to 400 weeks and (2) whether such benefits can be paid in a lump sum.”
Luedtke v. Travelers Ins. Co., 100 S.W.3d 188 (Tenn. 2000).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-210(f) — 1 case
Turner, David v. Pee Dee Country Enter., Inc., 2021 TN WC App. 68 (Tenn. Work. Comp. App. Bd. 2021).
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.