Newsletters
Risk Central
Digital EditionNH Supreme Court Rules Widow’s Death Benefits Claim Not Barred by Time Limits
The New Hampshire Supreme Court recently affirmed a decision awarding workers’ compensation death benefits to the widow of a firefighter, providing a significant clarification on how statutes of limitation apply to dependent claims.
In its Sept. 12, 2025, ruling in Appeal of State of N.H. (Adjutant General), the court determined that a dependent’s claim for death benefits is a new and distinct action, separate from any prior claim filed by the deceased employee. This decision has important implications for insurers and third-party administrators (TPAs) managing long-tail occupational disease claims, particularly when an initial disability claim is followed by a later death benefit claim.
The case involved a man who worked as both a volunteer and full-time firefighter for many years while also employed by the State of New Hampshire at Pease Tradeport. In February 2019, he was diagnosed with a rare form of bile duct cancer. His employer filed a report of injury, but the subsequent workers’ compensation claim was denied, and the employee did not appeal the decision. He passed away from the cancer in January 2020.
In 2023, his widow filed a new claim for workers’ compensation death benefits, which the employer’s TPA, Constitution State Services, also denied. The widow appealed to the state’s Compensation Appeals Board (CAB), which ruled in her favor.
The employer appealed the CAB’s decision to the state’s Supreme Court, presenting several arguments.
First, it contended that the widow’s claim was time-barred: The employer argued her claim was merely a continuation of her late husband’s original claim, and since he had not appealed its denial within the 18-month statutory period, her subsequent claim was invalid.
Second, the employer challenged the finding that the cancer was work-related, asserting that the medical evidence provided by the widow’s expert was speculative and not based on specific scientific studies linking firefighting to this particular rare cancer.
The Supreme Court’s analysis focused primarily on the timeliness of the widow’s claim. The court rejected the employer’s argument, holding that a dependent’s right to death benefits is an independent claim that arises at the time of the employee’s death. Citing long-standing legal precedent, the court explained that the legislature intended to create a system “by which [the employee’s] death creates in a dependent widow or child a right of action separate and distinct from that of the deceased employee.”
Therefore, the court said, the 18-month clock for the widow to file an appeal began when *her* claim was denied, not when her husband’s was. The court also upheld the CAB’s findings on causation, giving deference to the board’s role in weighing the conflicting testimony of medical experts and concluding there was competent evidence to support a link between the firefighter’s occupational exposures and his cancer.
View the full decision here. &
