5 U.S.C. § 8130
Assignment of claim
An assignment of a claim for compensation under this subchapter is void. Compensation and claims for compensation are exempt from claims of creditors.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases, 1980–2006 · leading case: In Re Howell
In Re Howell (1980)
“Any argument that disability benefits do not become part of the Chapter 13 estate by operation of non-bankruptcy law is refuted by the language of the Code and by the legislative history.”
Leisure v. Leisure (1993)
“He asserts that the OWCP benefits are not subject to distribution as marital property in a dissolution action because those benefits (1) replace future, not past, earnings; (2) are not within the statutory definition of “property”; (3) had not vested at the time the petition for…”
In the Matter of Randall B. Neavear, Debtor. Randall B. Neavear v. Richard S. Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human S (1982)
“, 5 U.S.C. § 8130 (1976); 33 U.S.C. § 775 (1976); 38 U.”
Benn v. Cole (In Re Benn) (2006)
“§ 352 (e); government employees' disability or death benefits for work-related injuries, 5 U.S.C. § 8130 ; military survivors' benefits, 10 U.”
In Re the Marriage of Geigle (1996)
“A According to Wallace, 5 U.S.C. § 8130 preempts Washington law to the extent Washington law would otherwise allow a trial court to consider OWCP benefits as divisible community property.”
Leisure v. Leisure (1992)
“Here, Husband claims that 5 U.S.C. § 8130 preempts Indiana law to the extent that Indiana allows the division of his OWCP benefits pursuant to a dissolution decree.”
In Re Buren (1980)
“§ 775 protecting benefits for widows of lighthouse service personnel; 5 U.S.C. § 8130 protecting payments made under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act.”
In Re Devall (1980)
“These sections and many other like sections were not specifically repealed by the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978.”
United States v. Carey (In Re Carey) (1983)
“, 5 U.S.C. § 8130 (1976); 33 U.S.C. § 775 (1976); 38 U.”
Anthony v. Anthony (1981)
“In turning to the intent of Congress under the Federal Worker’s Compensation statute we find the following in 5 U.S.C. § 8130 (1980): “An assignment of a claim for compensation under this subchapter (5 *391 U.”
Douglas v. Donovan (1982)
“Although he cites little case authority, or for that matter, legislative history to support his contention, he argues that the general intent of Congress is evident from a reading of the FECA, 5 U.S.C. § 8130 , which provides that “[cjompensation and claims for compensation are…”
In Re Luttrell (2004)
“00 under Tennessee Code Annotated section 26-2-111, under 5 U.S.C.A. § 8130 (West 1996), and under 11 U.”
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.