Could Husband Get Death Benefits for Wife who Fled Allegedly Abusive Marriage?

What Do You Think?

Sandy, OR (WorkersCompensation.com) – Is a spouse entitled to workers’ compensation death benefits if, prior to the employee’s death, the couple separated and were living apart? Under Oregon law, is there a minimum length of living apart that extinguishes a spouse’s right to death benefits?

A case involving an employee who left an allegedly abusive relationship answers questions. In that case, the employee filed a petition for separation of marriage in February 2019. It was unclear, however, when she left their residence and began living on her own. But at some point she moved away and started living in a car and in women’s shelters.

In May 2020, the employee was fatally injured in the course and scope of her employment. The husband sought workers’ compensation death benefits.

An insurance investigator determined that the claimant and the employee had stopped living together around June or July 2019–meaning that, at the time of the accident, they had been living apart for less than a year. 

The employer denied the claim, based on ORS 656.005(2)(b)(A), which provides that:

A "beneficiary," for purposes of workers’ compensation benefits, does not include a spouse of an injured worker living in a state of abandonment for more than one year at the time of the injury or subsequently.

A spouse who has lived separate and apart from the worker for a period of two years and who has not during that time received or attempted by process of law to collect funds for support or maintenance is considered living in a state of abandonment.

ORS 656.005(2)(b)(A)

The board upheld the denial, reasoning that, when the injury occurred, the couple had not been living apart for more than one year.

Was the board correct in denying the claim?

A. Yes. It appeared the couple was still living together less than a year before the accident. 

B. No. The board’s analysis was too narrow.

If you selected Answer B, you agreed with the court in Corrigan v. YRC Worldwide, no.  A177768 (Or. Ct. App. 06/14/23), which held that the board mistakenly focused solely on the length of the couple’s physical separation from one another. 

The court stated that the phrase "living in a state of abandonment for more than one year at the time of the injury" in the first sentence of ORS 656.005(2)(b)(A) refers to circumstances in which the parties have, through their conduct, forsaken the marriage for a period of more than a year. 

The filing of a separation petition is a relevant consideration, as is the financial interdependence of the parties. Having a separate domicile is a relevant consideration, but it is not a prerequisite for proving that the parties were, for more than a year, living "in a state of abandonment.”

The board erroneously treated "living separate and apart" as a requirement under the first sentence of ORS 656.005(2)(b)(A). As a result, it mistakenly made its decision based on the claimant and decedent living in separate households for less than one year before the fatal injury.

“Because the board looked only at whether the parties were living separate and apart, it did not engage in the broader inquiry required by the statute,” the court wrote. Instead, the board needed to look at whether the claimant and decedent demonstrated an intent to forsake the marriage for over a year

The court reversed and remanded the board’s decision.

Share This Article: