See, e.g., In re Young, 93 B.R. 590 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1988); In re Hartney, 1990 WL 250985 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1990) (unreported); In re Tosti, 276 B.R. 204 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2001); In re Wears, 311 B.R. 489 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2003). In Wears, the court overruled the trustee's objection to a spouses claimed exemption for his loss of consortium stating only that he was a party to the personal injury settlement and that "some portion of it is attributable to his claim."
As noted in more depth infra, the Bankruptcy Court clearly had jurisdiction to determine whether the Appellees' claims were excepted from Omar's exemption and/or were valid liens. 28 U.S.C. ยง 157(b)(2) (bankruptcy courts have jurisdiction to hear and determine matters concerning the allowance or disallowance of exemptions from property of the estate and matters concerning the validity of liens); Spartan Mills v. Bank of America, 112 F.3d 1251, 1256-57 (4th Cir. 1997), cert. denied 522 U.S. 969, 118 S.Ct. 417, 139 L.Ed.2d 319 (1997) (bankruptcy courts have jurisdiction if the outcome of the action could alter the debtor's rights or liabilities); In re Thompson, 313 B.R. 683 (M.D.N.C. 2004), In re Tosti, 276 B.R. 204 (S.D.Oh. 2001) (determining exemption in personal injury settlement proceeds). Debtor first argues that he claimed the proceeds of the personal injury action as exempt from the claims of creditors, and that since the Appellees did not object to that claim of exemption by the "absolute deadline" of Bankruptcy Rules 4003(b) and 9006(b)(3) that the proceeds are no longer considered property of the bankruptcy estate, thus depriving the Bankruptcy Court of authority to award any portion of those funds to Appellees.
The Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio has held that a loss of consortium claim falls within the narrower definition of "personal bodily injury" and qualified for exemption under state law. See Matter of Young, 93 B.R. 590 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1988) and In re Tosti, 276 B.R. 204 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2001). The Maryland bankruptcy court has also held that a loss of consortium claim falls within the broader definition of "personal injury" which includes non-bodily harm.