BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.
To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.
To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.
A Kentucky man's settlement of his workers compensation claim prior to his death doesn't bar his wife from seeking death benefits, the state Court of Appeals has ruled.
Stephen Baytos suffered a torn thoracic aorta in February 2006 while working for Charlotte, North Carolina-based Family Dollar Stores Inc., according to court records.
Before Mr. Baytos died in December 2009, he accepted a lump-sum payment from Family Dollar and agreed not to pursue any future claims, records show. However, his wife, Mamie Baytos, didn't sign the settlement, which did not include references to any future rights she might have.
In 2011, Ms. Baytos filed a motion to reopen her husband's claim and seek death benefits, records show.
An administrative law judge ruled in February 2014 that Mr. Baytos died as a result of his work-related injury and awarded Ms. Baytos death benefits, according to records.
Family Dollar appealed to the Kentucky Workers' Compensation Board, which reversed the judge's order in June 2014, records show. The board found that the settlement agreement between Mr. Baytos and Family Dollar barred Ms. Baytos from receiving death benefits.
On Friday, however, the Kentucky Court of Appeals vacated the order of the board and remanded the case for further proceedings, according to records.
Surviving spouses are eligible to receive death benefits if the injured worker dies within four years of a work-related injury, the court of appeals ruled. The law “makes no mention of prior agreements reached between the employer and the injured employee.”
A South Dakota worker who crashed his vehicle while taking a dead-end detour on the road to his office can’t receive workers compensation benefits for his injuries because the brief side trip took him outside the scope of his employment, the South Dakota Supreme Court has ruled.