44-513.
History: L. 1927, ch. 232, § 13; L. 1974, ch. 203, § 21; Repealed, L. 2000, ch. 160, § 25; July 1.
Source or prior law:
L. 1911, ch. 218, § 14; R.S. 1923, 44-513.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
Explanation, see Revisor's Note under article title, chapter 44, article 5.
Cases through 1973
IN GENERAL (1-10)
1. Status to receive compensation is fixed by the death of the workman. McCormick et al. v. Coal & Coke Co., 117 Kan. 686, 689, 692, 232 P. 1071 (1925).
2. Who are dependents in a given case, and the extent of dependency is a question of fact. McCormick et al. v. Coal & Coke Co., 117 Kan. 686, 689, 690, 232 P. 1071 (1925).
3. Wife pregnant when workman injured; subsequent death of workman from injury; unborn child is one of workman's dependents. Routh v. List & Weatherly Construction Co., 124 Kan. 222, 224, 225, 257 P. 721 (1927).
4. Evidence of total dependency; insufficient. Burgin v. Western Coal & M. Co., 132 Kan. 663, 296 P. 373 (1931).
5. This section does not mean recovery for medical or funeral expenses may be had by one not entitled to recover them. Williams v. Cities Service Gas Co., 151 Kan. 497, 505, 99 P.2d 822 (1940).
6. Allowance for medical services held error where workman dies. Wyant v. Douglas Coal Co., 122 Kan. 469, 473, 252 P. 237 (1927).
7. Mentioned; wrongful death action for minor workman unauthorized. Neville, Administratix v. Wichita Eagle, 179 Kan. 197, 200, 294 P.2d 248 (1956).
8. Administrator settled wrongful death claim without suit; general release; proceeds distributable under K.S.A. 60-3203. Holmes, Administrator v. Price, 186 Kan. 623, 624, 352 P.2d 5 (1960).
9. Recovery of compensation by administrator of deceased workman or administrator of dependent; either one proper. Smith v. Boiler Works Co., 104 Kan. 591, 592, 180 P. 259 (1919).
10. Respondent ordered to pay medical and funeral expenses of deceased workman who had no dependents. Karle v. Board of County Commissioners, 188 Kan. 800, 803, 366 P.2d 241 (1961).
APPORTIONMENT OF AWARD (11-16)
11. Compensation must be apportioned among dependents according to dependency. McCormick et al. v. Coal & Coke Co., 117 Kan. 686, 689, 232 P. 1071 (1925).
12. Distribution of award among three wives and eight children reviewed and adjudicated. Peters v. Peters, 177 Kan. 100, 276 P.2d 302 (1954).
13. Director is given right to apportion compensation among dependents according to the facts. Shobe v. Tobin Construction Co., 179 Kan. 43, 49, 292 P.2d 729 (1956).
14. Equal division of compensation among persons found wholly dependent is not required. Shobe v. Tobin Construction Co., 179 Kan. 43, 49, 292 P.2d 729 (1956).
15. Widow and child each apportioned $2,000 as dependents; reversed on appeal as to widow; commissioner may reapportion all the $4,000 to the child. Baxter v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Rly. Co., 141 Kan. 527, 532, 41 P.2d 999 (1935).
16. Compensation is not limited to dependents in one class. Winchester v. Stanton-Wallace Construction Co., 124 Kan. 458, 460, 260 P. 614 (1927).