• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

sister-in-law hurt on job truck accident

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Status
Not open for further replies.
What is the name of your Arkansas? I hope that someone can help me, I need help. My sister-in-law had a Truck accident on Monday while working. She works for a company driving a 18 wheeler. She is covered by Worker's Comp, she now in a Hospital in Little Rock in a Bad Coma, She has 50% 50% chance to survice. My brother is divorce from her, my brother and his ex have one boy together. My brother have custody of the boy, but now there is a war now between my sister-in-law family and my brother about her WORKER COMP, My brother went down to the Hospital to see her. He was told by the family to leave or they will call the Police. Now, my brother as obtained a lawyer to control his EX Worker Comp and her life Insurance if something happen to my Sister-in-law. My sister-in-law father called Worker Comp to have payment come to him, but now the worker Comp payment goes to my brother. Can my brother do all this since they have been divorce since June 2001. Or do my sister-in-law family have the right to control the affair's of Worker Comp. My brother think he as the right, because they have a son together. thank you Kirby Dickey
 


BlondiePB

Senior Member
Sorry about the ex sister-in law. Your question whether your brother is right or not cannot be answered without knowing what's the legal authorization his attorney applied for. Since your ex sister-in-law's family has the right to contest, brother be prepared to turn over any and all money received on behalf of his ex wife.
 

ellencee

Senior Member
If the attorney has been hired to protect the interests of the only heir, the son, then I don't see a problem with it. The parents of the sister-in-law do not supercede the sister-in-law's child; the ex-husband who has custody of the child does have legal rights in protecting his son's interest in his mother's estate.

I imagine the attorney provided WC with the legal basis for sending the WC payments to the son's father.

I think the son's father acted properly and by doing so, demonstrated that he is one smart guy.

EC
 

BlondiePB

Senior Member
OP has not returned with the info of the legal basis giving her brother the right to do anything. Protecting the son's interest in his mother's estate, of course, is the right thing to do. Without acquiring the proper legal court authorizations, brother does not have the authorization for handle the ex wife's WC or any other part of the estate for his son. And, the sister-in-law's family can contest this and win. Should that happen, brother must turn over all and any money received on behalf of his ex wife. This looks like it's going to be a court battle to me.
 

ellencee

Senior Member
OP has not returned with the info of the legal basis giving her brother the right to do anything.
the OP doesn't have to do so.
Without acquiring the proper legal court authorizations, brother does not have the authorization for handle the ex wife's WC or any other part of the estate for his son.
The proper "court" would be the workers compensation board, would it not? I'm sure this is not a new topic for them. Perhaps the attorney for the child gained all authorization necessary.
the sister-in-law's family can contest this and win. Should that happen, brother must turn over all and any money received on behalf of his ex wife.
What makes you think that? Do you have a law, or laws, that state the parents of an adult with a child should be awarded support via WC's wage benefits instead of the worker's dependent child? Workers comp can't being paying anything but wage benefits at this time; I'm sure no settlement money is being paid at this time.

EC
 
Last edited:

ellencee

Senior Member
From Arkansas Code:
11-9-801. Methods of payment.
(a) Compensation shall be paid by check or by state warrant.
(b) Payment shall be made payable to the order of the person entitled to the compensation and paid directly to the person entitled to the compensation.

(c) If the compensation beneficiary is a mental incompetent or a minor of tender years or immature judgment, the Workers' Compensation Commission, in the exercise of its discretion, may direct that payment shall be made to a legally appointed guardian of the estate of the incompetent or minor.
From the Arkansas Code, pertaining to WC death benefits
:(c) Beneficiaries - Amounts. Subject to the limitations as set out in §§ 11-9-501 - 11-9-506, compensation for the death of an employee shall be paid to those persons who were wholly and actually dependent upon the deceased employee in the following percentage of the average weekly wage of the employee and in the following order of preference:

(1)(A)(i) To the widow if there is no child, thirty-five percent (35%), and the compensation shall be paid until her death or remarriage.

(ii) However, the widow shall establish, in fact, some dependency upon the deceased employee before she will be entitled to benefits as provided in this section;

(B)(i) To the widower if there is no child, thirty-five percent (35%), and the compensation shall be paid until his death or remarriage.

(ii) However, the widower shall establish, in fact, some dependency upon the deceased employee before he will be entitled to benefits as provided in this section;

(2) To the widow or widower if there is a child, the compensation payable under subdivision (c)(1) of this section and fifteen percent (15%) on account of each child;

(3)(A) To one (1) child if there is no widow or widower, fifty percent (50%).

(B) If more than one (1) child, and there is no widow or widower, fifteen percent (15%) for each child, and in addition thereto, thirty-five percent (35%) to the children as a class, to be divided equally among them;

(4) To the parents, twenty-five percent (25%) each;

(5) To brothers, sisters, grandchildren, and grandparents, fifteen percent (15%) each.

(d) Terminations of Dependence. (1) In the event the widow remarries before full and complete payment to her of the benefits provided in subsection (c) of this section, there shall be paid to her a lump sum equal to compensation for one hundred four (104) weeks, subject to the limitation set out in §§ 11-9-501 - 11-9-506.

(2) A physically or mentally incapacitated child, grandchild, brother, or sister shall be entitled to compensation as a dependent of the deceased employee without regard to age or marital status, but if physically or mentally capacitated to earn a livelihood, dependency shall terminate with the attainment of eighteen (18) years of age or upon marriage. However, benefits to an otherwise eligible child shall not terminate at the age of eighteen (18) years provided the child is a full-time student who has not attained the age of twenty-five (25) years.

(e) Apportionment of Benefits. Where, because of the limitation in subsection (c) of this section, a person or class of persons cannot receive the percentage of compensation specified as payable to or on account of the person or class, there shall be available to the person or class that proportion of the percentage which, when added to the total percentage payable to all persons having priority or preference, will not exceed a total of sixty-five percent (65%), which proportion shall be paid:

(1) To that person; or

(2) To that class in equal shares unless the Worker's Compensation Commission determines otherwise in accordance with the provisions of subsection (f) of this section.

(f) Determination of Beneficiaries Within Class. If the commission determines that payments in accordance with subdivision (e)(2) of this section would provide no substantial benefit to any person of the class, it may provide for the payment of the compensation to the persons within the class whom it considers will be most benefited by the payment.

(g) Cessation of Compensation to Part. Upon the cessation of compensation under this section to or on account of any person, the compensation of the remaining persons entitled to compensation for the unexpired part of the period during which their compensation is payable shall be that which the persons would have received if they had been the only persons entitled to compensation at the time of the decedent's death.

(h) Determination of Dependency. All questions of dependency shall be determined as of the time of the injury.

(i) Partial Dependency. (1) If the employee leaves dependents who are only partially dependent upon his or her earnings for support at the time of injury, the compensation payable for partial dependency shall be in the proportion that the partial dependency bears to total dependency.

(2) In any claim for partial dependency where the average weekly contributions for support were not such as to entitle all dependents to compensation in the aggregate sum of seven dollars ($7.00) per week, the dependents shall receive compensation for a period not to exceed four hundred fifty (450) weeks in an amount not to exceed the amount of average weekly contributions of the deceased employee for the support of the dependents.
11-8-108. Survival of cause of action.
Any right of action given by §§ 11-8-101 - 11-8-108 to a person suffering injury shall survive to his or her personal representative for the benefit of the surviving spouse and children of the employee and, if none, then of the employee's parents and, if none, then of the next of kin of the employee, but in these cases, there shall be only one (1) recovery for the same injury.
I'm not saying any of this applies in whole or in part to the OP's question, but it does suggest that the OP's brother, as the legal guardian of the worker's son, has a legal right to receive benefits on behalf of the son.

EC
 
Last edited:

ellencee

Senior Member
Just in case it is a child support issue, here's Arkansas Code:

11-9-110. Compensation nonassignable, etc., and payable to dependents only - Child support obligations excepted.
(a) The right to compensation shall not be assignable and shall not be subject to garnishment, attachment, levy, execution, or any other legal process, except for child support obligations and moneys retained by the Department of Correction under § 12-30-406(a)(1).
(b) Money compensation to dependents of a deceased employee shall not constitute assets of the estate of the deceased employee and shall be payable to and for the benefit of the dependents alone.

(c)(1) On or after June 30, 1993, the Workers' Compensation Commission shall forward monthly a computer tape listing the name, address, and social security number, if available, on all persons for whom the commission has established a file during the preceding month to the Office of Child Support Enforcement of the Revenue Division of the Department of Finance and Administration. The computer tape shall also include the name of the workers' compensation carrier and the name of the employer.

(2) The same information shall be provided to individuals who apply for the information with the commission on an individual employee to an individual certifying that they have an interest in the child support obligations of the employee on whom the information is requested.

(d)(1) Amounts withheld from weekly compensation benefits for child support obligations shall not exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the benefit amount.

(2) Amounts withheld from a lump-sum settlement on a joint petition for child support obligations shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the settlement amount.

(e) Any amount withheld under subsection (d) of this section shall be paid through the appropriate court payable to the person or agency to whom the obligation is payable.

(f) Any amount withheld pursuant to the provisions of this section shall for all purposes be treated as if it were paid to the employee as workers' compensation and paid by the employee to the person or agency to whom the obligation is payable.

(g) For purposes of this section, "child support obligations" is defined as only those support obligations which are contained in a decree or order of the circuit court which provides for the payment of money for the support and care of any child or children.
EC
 

BlondiePB

Senior Member
Originally Posted by ellencee
the OP doesn't have to do so.
That's right. The OP does not have to provide the legal basis giving her brother the right to do anything. Without that very important piece of information, OP's question cannot be properly answered. It is the "key" to this entire matter.

Originally Posted by ellencee
I'm not saying any of the applies in whole or in part to the OP's question, but it does suggest that the OP's brother, as legal guardian of the worker's son, has a legal right to receive benefits on behalf of the son.
This is not the issue. Respectively, ellencee, this situtation needs to not suggest or to assume. I understand how you are trying to assist the OP and protect the boy's interest. When this child's mother dies, there's going to be more battles.

I have no doubt that when all this "washes out" that everything the child is entitled to he will obtain and it will be protected by the court. I just hope most of it does not go to legal fees over the battles.
 
sister-in-law hurt on truck accident/question

Hello, I have another question to ask. I just learn this information today that my brother might or might not have custody of his Son. I just learn that he left the boy by himself at home for days at a time to drive his truck. Several people called Social Services or DHS on my brother about this matter. My sister-in-law have taken cared of him since August. Would this hurt my brother case to control my sister-in-law Workers Comp or be appointed legal guardian over his Son's affair. I did'nt know about this matter about DHS. DHS gave custody of the boy back to my sister-in-law. It is terrible and a big mess, I just want to help my Nephew. thank you Kirby
 

ellencee

Senior Member
BlondiePB
I'm not trying to assist the OP's brother; I'm just trying to find some legal basis for an attorney's assistance in gaining such prompt payment of wage benefits to the father of the son. I have no reason to assume that the entire amount of weekly benefits is going anywhere except into the "accrued benefits" account. Until shown otherwise, I have to assume that WC is following the laws that regulate it and is only complying with laws that provide for child support.

I hate to see the woman's family fighting at all, much less over money. It always seems to come down to money and control of the children [which equals control of the parent(s)].

It's been one week, today, if I understand the date of the woman's injury and look at her family and her extended family; such anger!

kirby dickey
Hello, I have another question to ask. I just learn this information today that my brother might or might not have custody of his Son. I just learn that he left the boy by himself at home for days at a time to drive his truck. Several people called Social Services or DHS on my brother about this matter. My sister-in-law have taken cared of him since August. Would this hurt my brother case to control my sister-in-law Workers Comp or be appointed legal guardian over his Son's affair. I did'nt know about this matter about DHS. DHS gave custody of the boy back to my sister-in-law. It is terrible and a big mess, I just want to help my Nephew.
Much depends on the DHS custody order and whether or not it was a temporary placement while the father made suitable arrangements for the child or whether DHS obtained a court order changing custody to the mother and stopping any child support the mother may have been required to pay.

In both issues, the WC benefits and the custody issue: Can you find out exactly what was done? Have you read any legal papers in possession of your brother regarding WC benefits? Have you read any legal papers regarding the DHS change in custody of the minor child?

In your relationship to all of these people and events, you have no legal right to any money or custody, so I have assumed that you are asking out of concern for your brother. He has an attorney; try and have some faith that he is receiving proper legal counsel.

EC
 

rmet4nzkx

Senior Member
The timing of this accident couldn't have been worse, especially with a recent custody change when there was Neglect documented and acted upon by CPS/DHS. I suggest contacting CPS/DHS inform them that the father is aserting custody rights recently taken away, due to the accident and that the child needs a Guardian ad Litem appointed and possible new guardian appointed as well as a guardian assigned for the mother in a coma, this might be her family but it needs to be legally done otherwise the ex may assert rights. No one has to know you reported this if you are afraid of your brother. It sounds like you are concerned about your nephew, and it is his best interest that needs to be considered, not that of your brother.
 

BlondiePB

Senior Member
Originally posted by ellencee
I'm just trying to find some legal basis for an attorney's assistance in gaining such prompt payment to the father of the son.
OP's brother's legal authorization is exactly what is missing in all this and what needs to be known. I too immediately noticed how fast this all happened. The payment that went to OP's brother would have been issued to the ex sister-in-law. Brother must have court authorization (not the w/c court) to receive any of the ex SIL's Work Comp payments, regardless of whether there is any child support involved. That's why when all the facts come out, if they do, all that money better be made available to hand over whoever acquires legal, court authorization (not w/c court) over the estate of the mother who (mother's legal representative) will have to disperse to whoever is entitled to what.

Now that DHS has been called and that investigation is pending, things have gone further down the drain. The outcome of this investigation will affect things. I don't even want to begin to imagine the affect this is having on the child while all is fighting over control is going on. A court appointed third party not affiliated with either side may be what's truly best for this situation.
 

ellencee

Senior Member
BlondiePB
All it would have taken is for the attorney to fax a copy of the child support order to the WC carrier and the support begins to be deducted from the WC and sent to the agency or person who receives the support; it would not first go the the mother (the worker) and then to the agency or the person. Still, for it to have gone from presenting the support order to receiving any money in this length of time just boggles the mind. We are talking about a government agency! Maybe no money has yet to be received? That seems more logical!
EC
 

BlondiePB

Senior Member
EC,
I totally understand what you're saying here. There's missing information which makes control over this ambiguous, including whether or not all this involves any child support at all. OP started another link https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=199069

Without the missing information from OP, which she has failed to provide even after returning to this site, sorting out what OP's brother has the legal authorization to control truly is not possible. That "key" piece of information, and now with whether or not there is child support, will make it extremely easy to deal with all this and sort out everything. I am baffled as to why OP has not provided this. It certainly would make things "crystal clear" so that we can all assist.
 

rmet4nzkx

Senior Member
Apparently OP only recently discovered that DHS/CPS had taken the child away from their brother/child's Father and returned the child to the mother in August because of the father's neglect, so there is no investigation pending right now. It would seem that he is trying to get control over the mother's benefits utilizing old court papers, rather than the current orders. While he has an attorney, it doesn't mean he has told his attorney the truth. I have seen other situations where people take advantage of emergency situations to gain custody without telling the whole truth and if they present orders, it may take a while to straighten out.

That I why I said to call DHS/CPS and also request Guardian ad Litem for child and guardian for mother, most likely her guardian will be her family, I don't think she would want it to be her ex in this situation. What a dispicable thing to do, take advantage of a time like this to both take custody and financial abuse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top