Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152, § 47 (2026)

Assignments; attachments; liability for debts

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 47. No payment shall be assignable or subject to attachment or be liable in any way for debts, except to a veteran's agent or the secretary of veterans' services as and to the extent permitted by section five of chapter one hundred and fifteen and except as permitted to the department of public welfare under chapters eighteen, one hundred and seventeen, one hundred and eighteen, and the division of medical assistance under one hundred and eighteen E, and except to an obligee of support payments who is entitled to receive such payments pursuant to a support order under chapter two hundred and eight, two hundred and nine, two hundred and nine C, two hundred and seventy-three or two hundred and nine D. The division shall permit a veteran's agent, the secretary of veteran's services, the department of public welfare and the division of medical assistance to inspect the records of the division to ascertain the existence of a claim for personal injuries filed with the division by any employee under this chapter and the existence of any assignment, attachment, or liability for debts permitted under the provisions of this section. This section shall prevail over sections 9–406 and 9–408 of chapter 106 to the extent, if any, that such sections might otherwise apply.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1968–2021 · leading case: Donovan v. Donovan, 443 N.E.2d 432 (Mass. App. Ct. 1982).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Donovan v. Donovan, 443 N.E.2d 432 (Mass. App. Ct. 1982). · cites it 5× “152, § 7, at which the defendant asserted that the company was in violation of G. L. c. 152, § 47, which insulates workers’ compensation payments from assignment and attachment or application to the employee’s debts.”

Wood v. Premier Capital, Inc. (In Re Wood), 291 B.R. 219 (1st Cir. BAP 2003). “(“Premier”) to the claim of exemption by Helen Wood (the “Debtor”) regarding a workers’ compensation settlement pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152, § 47 . On appeal, the Debtor asserts, among other things, that the bankruptcy court erred in sustaining Premier’s objection to the…”

In Re McConchie, 94 B.R. 245 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1988). “151A, § 36 (unemployment compensation); M.G. L. c. 152, § 47 (worker’s compensation).”

In Re MacDonald, 326 B.R. 6 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2005). “In his First Amended Schedule C, the Debtor listed the Claim as exempt pursuant to the Massachusetts statutory exemption set forth in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152, § 47 , which exempts certain workers’ compensation benefits from seizure on execution.”

Slive & Hanna, Inc. v. Massachusetts Comm'n Against Discrimination & Another., 178 N.E.3d 407 (Mass. App. Ct. 2021). “151A, § 36, workers' compensation benefits, G. L. c. 152, § 47, and Social Security benefits, 42 U.”

Rapid Settlements, Ltd. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 672 F. Supp. 2d 714 (D. Maryland 2009). “”); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152, § 47 (“No payment shall be assignable or subject to attachment or be liable in any way for debts.”

Mulcahy v. Travelers Ins., 42 Mass. App. Dec. 141 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1968). “Counsel for the petitioner argues that the provisions of G.L. c. 152, § 47 in effect on September 12,1963, the date of the assignment, govern and therefor the assignment was permitted and valid.”

In Re DeVoe, 134 B.R. 74 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1991). “115, § 5 (veterans benefits exempt from trustee process); and G.L. c. 152, § 47 (workers’ compensation benefits exempt, subject to certain exceptions).”

Fox & Abrams, P.C. v. Fraioli, 1984 Mass. App. Div. 64 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1984). · cites it 2× “152, §48) under the worker’s compensation law and as such exempt from attachment by the provisions of G.L.c. 152, §47. 3 The principal contention of the plaintiff is that the statute prohibits attachment of “payments” and does not prohibit the attachment of lump sum “settlements.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.