Except as otherwise provided in sections 3119.80, 3119.81, 3121.02, 3121.03, and 3123.06 of the Revised Code, compensation before payment shall be exempt from all claims of creditors and from any attachment or execution, and shall be paid only to the employees or their dependents. In all cases where property of an employer is placed in the hands of an assignee, receiver, or trustee, claims arising under any award or finding of the industrial commission or bureau of workers' compensation, pursuant to this chapter, including claims for premiums, and any judgment recovered thereon shall first be paid out of the trust fund in preference to all other claims, except claims for taxes and the cost of administration, and with the same preference given to claims for taxes.
Cirino v. Bur. of Workers' Comp. (Slip Opinion), 2018 Ohio 2665 (Ohio 2018). · cites it 2דCirino also alleges that the debit-card program violates R.C. 4123.67, which provides that until compensation benefits are paid to a recipient, they "shall be exempt from all claims of creditors and from any attachment or execution, and [they] shall be paid only to the employees…”
Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Antonelli, 504 N.E.2d 717 (Ohio 1987). · cites it 6ד) At the time pertinent herein, R.C. 4123.67 in relevant part provided: “Except as otherwise provided in division (B)(1)(b) or (B)(2)(a)(ii) of section 3113.”
Rowan v. Rowan, 650 N.E.2d 1360 (Ohio 1995). · cites it 7דWe hold that a trial court’s deduction of an attorney’s contingent fee from a lump-sum workers’ compensation payment does not offend R.C. 4123.67 or 3113.21. In its only proposition of law, LCCSEA relies on R.”
Cirino v. Bur. of Workers' Comp., 2021 Ohio 1382 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2ד("Chase Bank") to charge fees associated with a BWC- authorized "debit card program," which, according to Cirino's claim, resulted in BWC shifting administrative costs to BWC claimants in violation of R.”
Minor Child of Zentack v. Strong, 614 N.E.2d 1106 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2דTo the extent possible, the amount specified in the order to be withheld shall satisfy the amount ordered for support in the support order plus any arrearages that may be owed by the obligor under any prior support order that pertained to the same child or spouse,…”
State ex rel. Nyitray v. Indus. Comm'n, 443 N.E.2d 962 (Ohio 1983). “” R.C. 4123.67. It follows that since the payments are personal to the employee and payable only to the employee, dependents have no right to receive any benefits while the worker is living.”
In Re Lindsay, 261 B.R. 209 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2001). · cites it 4ד66(A)(9)(b), which provides: (A) Every person who is domiciled in this state may hold property exempt from execution, garnishment, attachment, or sale to satisfy a judgment or order, as follows: (9) The person’s interest in the following: (b) Workers’ compensation, as exempted…”
Waldman v. Nolen (In Re Nolen), 65 B.R. 1014 (Bankr. D.N.M. 1986). “April 14, 1986) [Available on WEST-LAW, OH-CS database], the court construed the language, “compensation before payment shall be exempt from all claims,” Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 4123.67, and upheld a creditor’s attachment of compensation funds after receipt by the debtor.”
Bruce v. Bruce, 130 N.E.2d 433 (Ohio Ct. App. 1955). · cites it 2ד(4) The decision of the Court is contrary to the Workmen’s Compensation Law and specifically §4123.67 R. C. (§1465-88 GC). Without comment, we hold against the first and second assignments of error.”
Rowan v. Rowan, 1995 Ohio 110 (Ohio 1995). · cites it 9ד] Domestic relations—Child-support arrearages—Attorney fees—Trial court's deduction of attorney's contingent fee from a lump-sum workers' compensation payment does not offend R.C. 4123.67 or 3113.21. A trial court's deduction of an attorney's contingent fee from a lump-sum…”
Florida Asset Fin. Corp. v. Utah Labor Comm'n, 2006 UT 58 (Utah 2006). “"); Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 4123.67 (2001) ("[C]ompensation before payment shall be exempt from all claims of creditors and from any attachment or execution, and shall be paid only to the employees or their dependents.”
Kilgore v. Kilgore, 449 N.E.2d 802 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 6דSpecifically, appellant asserts that R.C. 4123.67, which sets out the exemptions from attachment, may not be read to preclude court-ordered payment of such proceeds to children of living employees.”
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.