No claim for compensation under this Article shall be assignable, and all compensation and claims therefor shall be exempt from all claims of creditors and from taxes.
No agreement by an employee to pay any portion of premium paid by his employer to a carrier or to contribute to a benefit fund or department maintained by such employer for the purpose of providing compensation or medical services and supplies as required by this Article shall be valid, and any employer who makes a deduction for such purpose from the pay of any employee entitled to the benefits of this Article shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished only by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500.00). No agreement by an employee to waive his right to compensation under this Chapter shall be valid. (1929, c. 120, s. 21; 1993, c. 539, s. 677; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)
Notes of Decisions
Sara Lee Corp. v. Carter (1999)
nc · cites it 27×
“In this appeal, plaintiff contends (1) that the Court of Appeals erred in not applying N.”
Cross v. Capital Transaction Group, Inc. (2008)
ncctapp · cites it 24×
“§ 97-21 (2007), “Claims unassignable and exempt from taxes and debtsf,]” which provides in pertinent part: No claim for compensation under this Article shall be assignable, and all compensation and claims therefor shall be exempt from all claims of creditors and from taxes.”
Hyler v. GTE Products Co. (1993)
nc · cites it 6×
“N.C.G.S. § 97-21 (employee's claims for "compensation" not assignable; employee may not "waive his right to compensation under this Chapter").”
Jacobs v. Central Transport, Inc. (1995)
nced · cites it 12×
“The lease operators were contributing to Central’s group plan while Central’s employees, as required by law (see N.C.G.S. § 97-21), were not. However, Central’s employees received the same benefits from the group plan as the lease operators.”
Sara Lee Corp. v. Carter (1998)
ncctapp · cites it 5×
“Defendant’s continuous breach of fiduciary duty does not allow for apportionment; therefore the trial court properly awarded damages to Sara Lee in the total amount of the compensation and benefits received by Defendant pursuant to his employment. IV Under our Workers’…”
Higgins v. Simmons (1989)
nc · cites it 6×
“Garnishee bank raised for the first time before the Court of Appeals the additional issue of whether the prohibition in N.C.G.S. § 97-21 against the assignment of workers’ compensation claims likewise prohibits the court from allowing garnishment of an account into which the…”
Jacobs v. Central Transport, Inc. (1995)
nced · cites it 2×
“G.S. 97-21), were not. However, Central’s employees received the same benefits from the group plan as the lease operators.”
Patterson v. Markham & Associates (1996)
ncctapp · cites it 3×
“Defendant Markham deducted ten percent of plaintiff’s pay to help cover his workers’ compensation premium, in violation of N.C.G.S. § 97-21. 6. In September 1992 Markham, was self-insured through Home Builders, with Consolidated Administrators as the servicing agent.”
Skillin v. Magna Corp./Greene's Tree Service, Inc. (2002)
ncctapp · cites it 2×
“See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-21 (2001). Here, the Deputy Commissioner found as fact, in spite of the parties’ stipulation that decedent was an independent contractor, that he was an employee, and then ordered reimbursement to him of premiums withheld.”
In re Gregory (2013)
nceb
“§ 97-21; teacher and state employee pensions, retirement benefits and deferred compensation, Id.”
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.