Va. Code » Title 65.2. Workers' Compensation » Chapter 5. Compensation and Payment Thereof
Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-515 (2026)

Persons conclusively presumed to be wholly dependent

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. The following persons shall be conclusively presumed to be dependents wholly dependent for support upon the deceased employee:

1. A spouse upon his deceased spouse whom he had not voluntarily deserted at the time of the accident or with whom he lived at the time of the accident, if he is then actually dependent upon his deceased spouse;

2. A child under the age of 18 upon a parent and a child over such age if physically or mentally incapacitated from earning a livelihood or a child under the age of 23 if enrolled as a full-time student in any accredited educational institution; and

3. Parents in destitute circumstances, provided that there are no total dependents pursuant to other provisions of this section.

B. As used in this section, "child" includes a stepchild, a legally adopted child, a posthumous child, and an acknowledged illegitimate child, but does not include a married child, and "parent" includes stepparents and parents by adoption.

Code 1950, § 65-63; 1968, c. 660, § 65.1-66; 1973, cc. 401, 542; 1991, c. 355; 2020, c. 900.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1995–2025 · leading case: Roanoke Belt, Inc. v. Mroczkowski, 455 S.E.2d 267 (Va. Ct. App. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Roanoke Belt, Inc. v. Mroczkowski, 455 S.E.2d 267 (Va. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 25× “CONSIDERATION OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS AS INCOME Code § 65.2-515 defines those persons who are conclusively presumed to be wholly dependent upon a deceased employee.”
Dunnavant v. Newman Tire Co., Inc., 656 S.E.2d 431 (Va. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 6× “Code § 65.2-515(A). Subject to certain exceptions, this class includes spouses, minor children, destitute parents, and adult children who are disabled or attending school.”
Starbucks Coffee Co. & Am. Zurich Ins. Co. v. Kristin Shy, 734 S.E.2d 683 (Va. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “2-712 referred not to injured employees, like claimant, but to dependents pursuant to Code § 65.2-515. Recognizing the great weight afforded to the commission’s construction of the Act, we also note that the language and history of Code § 65.”
Tharp v. City of Norfolk, 454 S.E.2d 13 (Va. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 6× “Tharp appeals from the Workers’ Compensation Commission’s findings that she was not dependent upon her deceased husband at the time of his death, Code § 65.2-515, and, therefore, was not entitled to dependent benefits.”
Oil Transp., Inc. v. Emma Jordan, 472 S.E.2d 291 (Va. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 8× “If there are no total dependents pursuant to subdivision A 1, A 2, or A 3 of § 65.2-515, to those persons presumed to be wholly dependent as set forth in subdivision A 4 of § 65.”
Thorpe v. Ted Bowling Const., 724 S.E.2d 728 (Va. 2012). · cites it 2× “Rather, the parties entered into a stipulation that she was his wholly dependent wife at the time of his injury and was therefore a statutory beneficiary pursuant to Code §§ 65.2-515(A)(1) and 65.2-512(A)(1).”
B.P. SOLAR & Ace Am. Ins. Co. v. Carolyn E. JONES, 641 S.E.2d 124 (Va. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “2-712 provides: So long as an employee or statutory dependent pursuant to § 65.2-515 receives payment of compensation under this title, any such person shall have a duty immediately to disclose to the employer, when the employer is self-insured, or insurer in all other cases,…”
Henrico Cnty. Div. of Fire v. Est. of Woody, 572 S.E.2d 526 (Va. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “He smoked an average of three-quarters of a pack of cigarettes a day from age 18 until approximately 1994 when he was diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma (lung cancer).”
Sheila Runyon, Adm'x of the Est. of Howard Runyon v. CBS Constr. Co., No. 1720102 (Va. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2011). · cites it 12× “The parties stipulated that Howard’s compensable injury caused his death, but disputed Runyon’s status as a presumptive dependent under Code § 65.2-515. Runyon argued that she was actually dependent upon Howard until the date of separation and thus entitled to death benefits…”
Sifford v. Sifford, 716 S.E.2d 128 (Va. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 9× “She argues she was “actually dependent” upon her husband at the time of his death, pursuant to Code § 65.2-515. The issue before us is whether appellant was “actually dependent” on Mr.”
Primis Bank v. Joseph S. Mahaley, No. 1053234 (Va. Ct. App. Mar. 4, 2025). · cites it 2× “, Code § 65.2-515(A) (conclusive presumption with no temporal specification); - 18 - Code § 15.”
Anthony Leon Clark, etc. v. Langhorne Bros., Inc, No. 0695003 (Va. Ct. App. Nov. 14, 2000). · cites it 5× “Clark ("Odell"), his mother, contends that the Workers' Compensation Commission ("commission") erred in finding that (1) Odell failed to prove that she was conclusively presumed to be wholly dependent upon the decedent, as a parent in destitute circumstances within the meaning…”
Show all 13 citing cases →
Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-515(A): 2 cases
Dunnavant v. Newman Tire Co., Inc., 656 S.E.2d 431 (Va. Ct. App. 2008). “Code § 65.2-515(A). Subject to certain exceptions, this class includes spouses, minor children, destitute parents, and adult children who are disabled or attending school.”
Primis Bank v. Joseph S. Mahaley, No. 1053234 (Va. Ct. App. Mar. 4, 2025). “, Code § 65.2-515(A) (conclusive presumption with no temporal specification); - 18 - Code § 15.”
Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-515(A)(1): 2 cases
Thorpe v. Ted Bowling Const., 724 S.E.2d 728 (Va. 2012). “Rather, the parties entered into a stipulation that she was his wholly dependent wife at the time of his injury and was therefore a statutory beneficiary pursuant to Code §§ 65.2-515(A)(1) and 65.2-512(A)(1).”
Sheila Runyon, Adm'x of the Est. of Howard Runyon v. CBS Constr. Co., No. 1720102 (Va. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2011). “The parties stipulated that Howard’s compensable injury caused his death, but disputed Runyon’s status as a presumptive dependent under Code § 65.2-515. Runyon argued that she was actually dependent upon Howard until the date of separation and thus entitled to death benefits…”
Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-515(A)(4): 4 cases
Roanoke Belt, Inc. v. Mroczkowski, 455 S.E.2d 267 (Va. Ct. App. 1995). “CONSIDERATION OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS AS INCOME Code § 65.2-515 defines those persons who are conclusively presumed to be wholly dependent upon a deceased employee.”
Oil Transp., Inc. v. Emma Jordan, 472 S.E.2d 291 (Va. Ct. App. 1996). “If there are no total dependents pursuant to subdivision A 1, A 2, or A 3 of § 65.2-515, to those persons presumed to be wholly dependent as set forth in subdivision A 4 of § 65.”
Anthony Leon Clark, etc. v. Langhorne Bros., Inc, No. 0695003 (Va. Ct. App. Nov. 14, 2000). “Clark ("Odell"), his mother, contends that the Workers' Compensation Commission ("commission") erred in finding that (1) Odell failed to prove that she was conclusively presumed to be wholly dependent upon the decedent, as a parent in destitute circumstances within the meaning…”
Abraham Aleman-Antunez (Deceased) v. Jeffrey S. Riddle & Montgomery Ins. Co., No. 2114052 (Va. Ct. App. Dec. 20, 2005).
Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-515(A)(l): 2 cases
Tharp v. City of Norfolk, 454 S.E.2d 13 (Va. Ct. App. 1995). “Tharp appeals from the Workers’ Compensation Commission’s findings that she was not dependent upon her deceased husband at the time of his death, Code § 65.2-515, and, therefore, was not entitled to dependent benefits.”
Sifford v. Sifford, 716 S.E.2d 128 (Va. Ct. App. 2011). “She argues she was “actually dependent” upon her husband at the time of his death, pursuant to Code § 65.2-515. The issue before us is whether appellant was “actually dependent” on Mr.”
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.