Chapter 7 debtor listed an automobile personal injury claim, which he valued at $25,000, as an asset of his estate and claimed it as exempt under Utah law. The court identified three Issues: 1) whether debtor was bound by a subrogation agreement executed by his mother in favor of the health plan that covered both her and debtor; 2) whether the asset that debtor claimed to be exempt constituted "compensatory damages," as provided by the Utah exemption statute; and 3) whether the claimed exemption was preempted by the subrogation provisions of an ERISA-qualified plan. The court concluded that the subrogation provisions were binding upon the debtor, who ratified the subrogation terms by knowingly accepting benefit payments under the plan and failing to take any action in four years to disaffirm his mother's execution of the agreement. The court also determined that proceeds from debtor's personal injury claim would be considered "compensatory damages," which were exempt under the Utah Exemptions Act (Utah Code Ann. § 78-23-5(1)(i)). However, relying on In re Martin, 115 B.R. 311 (Bankr. D. Utah 1990) aff'd sub nom. In re Fullmer, 127 B.R. 55 (D. Utah 1991), the court concluded that, because the exemption statute "related" to an ERISA-qualified plan, it was preempted by the provisions of that plan. Therefore, debtor's exemption was allowed, over the trustee's objection, but only to the extent that the recovery exceeded the amount of the ERISA plan's subrogation claim.