(a) No claims or payments due for compensation under chapters 29 — 38 of this title or
under any alternative scheme permitted by §§ 28-29-22 — 28-29-24 shall be assignable, or subject to attachment, or liable in any way for any debts,
except as set forth in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) A lien in favor of the department of labor and training and/or the executive office
of health and human services shall attach by operation of law to any benefits due
and payable under chapters 29 — 38 of this title, or under any alternative scheme
by §§ 28-29-22 — 28-29-24, to the extent that those payments have been made by the department of labor and
training and/or the executive office of health and human services to or on behalf
of an injured employee or his or her dependents, but only to the extent that the employee
would be entitled to receive benefits under the provision of these chapters. Any such
lien is subject to the provisions of § 40-6-10.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
3
cases, 1984–2010 · leading case:
In Re Bonzey, 153 B.R. 105 (Bankr. D.R.I. 1993).
In Re Bonzey, 153 B.R. 105 (Bankr. D.R.I. 1993).
· cites it 13× “The Debtor contends that R.I.Gen.Laws § 28-33-27 authorizes such an exemption, while the Trustee argues that the exemption ended when Bonzey received a lump sum compensation payment for her work-related injury.”
Kulawas v. Rhode Island Hosp., 994 A.2d 649 (R.I. 2010).
· cites it 4× “The monetary award that Kulawas received was issued in accordance with the provisions of the act.”
Cardenas v. Cardenas, 478 A.2d 968 (R.I. 1984).
· cites it 4× “1956 (1979 Reenactment) § 28-33-27, as amended by P.L.1982, ch. 32, art.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-33-27(B) — 1 case
Cardenas v. Cardenas, 478 A.2d 968 (R.I. 1984).
“1956 (1979 Reenactment) § 28-33-27, as amended by P.L.1982, ch. 32, art.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-33-27(b) — 1 case
Kulawas v. Rhode Island Hosp., 994 A.2d 649 (R.I. 2010).
“The monetary award that Kulawas received was issued in accordance with the provisions of the act.”
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.