破产时工伤赔偿金能免债吗？

比方说，你在工作时受伤。一段时间后，你拿到工伤索赔，有权获得$ 200,000。但是，在过去的3年里你因为受伤致残而无法工作。你欠下信用卡债务$80,000元，因为你没有收入。你决定申请第7章破产救济，以便能摆脱您的卡债$80,000元。可是你又已经得到了$ 20万元的工伤赔偿，那些钱将会如何？受托人会不会拿走你这$20万去付您的信用卡债务$80,000呢？亦或者，你既能够保住$20万，又得以免除您的信用卡债务$80,000呢？这确实是一个有趣的问题。

当然，受托人将竭力获得你的$20万。但他会成功吗？如果在这种情况下，你可以依靠第522（D）（11）破产法（E）。该章节豁免“债务人应得的钱或财产之溯源（E），是因为债务人失去挣钱能力，是对於债务人或债务人要供养的人未来收益的损失补偿金，在合理范围内债务人及其要供养的人是生活必需的。”

案例
第7章债务人Holstine，声称他的工伤赔偿$138,000美元应该免债，根据第522（D）（11）（E）。受托人反对豁免申请。但法院发现，工伤赔偿是支付他失去未来挣钱能力的损失赔偿。因此，该赔偿可以予以免债， 它是债务人和他妻子的合理必要的生活费。债务人作证说，他永久致残，该项赔偿是对他的未来收益的补偿，他和他的妻子就靠这些赔偿过日子。法院没有发现禁止债务人豁免整笔款项的理由。

受托人随后向法院提出上诉：The trustee then asked the court for a stay pending appeal, and asked the court to prohibit TCF National Bank from allowing the cash in the debtor's account to be diminished in any amount less than $70,000. The trustee did not contest the court's findings of fact, but raised a legal issue that workers' compensation payments are not protected by Section 522(d)(11)(E). According to the trustee, Mr. big fat Meanie, this section protected only tort claims. While there is case law supporting the trustee's position, the court noted that those cases were decided in the context of whether to exempt a worker' compensation award under the more generous exemption provisions of Section 522(d)(10)) or the more restrictive provisions of 522(d)(11)(E). Section 522(d)(10) exempts “The debtor's right to receive…© a disability, illness, or unemployment benefit." These cases were also decided before In Re Sanchez, where the court found that debtors may exempt a lump sum workers' compensation redemption under Section 522(d)(11)(E) as longs as: (1) the payment is traceable to a payment in compensation of loss of future earnings of the debtor; and (2) only to the extent reasonably necessary for the support of the debtor and any dependent of the debtor. Given the very detailed and careful analysis of both prior case law and legislative history in Sanchez, the court in this case was confident that its reliance on that conclusion was sound. Consequently, the court found little likelihood that the trustee would be successful on appeal. The court also noted that if it issued the stay, the debtors would be deprived of money they needed to pay their necessary living expenses. Therefore, the equities favored denying the stay.
 The extent reasonably necessary for the support of debtor or his dependent is a flexible standard that takes into consideration the personal circumstances of the debtor. A debtor with substantial income from somewhere else may not need the award for support.

杨清泉律师毕业於乔治城大学法学硕士，并已经开业三十多年。杨清泉律师专精破产法，商业和民事的诉讼，在加州已成功的处理了超过六千个破产案件。杨清泉律师通英语，国语及福建话，并期待着与您讨论您的个人情况。请致电安吉Angie，芭芭拉或Jess，预约电话（626）284-1142 ，地址1000 S Fremont Ave Bldg A-1 Suite 1125 Unit 58 Alhambra, CA 91803.