reason of the loss of her husband’s society, services, sexual relations and conjugal affection which includes companionship, comfort, love and solace. Clouston at [258 N.E.2d at] 23k (emphasis added). Accord, American Export Lines, Inc. v. Alvez, 446 U.S. 274, 285, 100 S.Ct. 1673, 1679, 64 L.Ed.2d 284 (1980). As Judge Rice of this district noted in interpreting Ohio law concerning a claim for loss of consortium, “Certainly, the Clouston decision, and other reported Ohio case law on the subject, speak in terms of an “injury” or ‘physical injury’ to a spouse. However, the cases do not require that the injury to a spouse be physical.” (emphasis in original). Adkins v. General Motors Corp., 556 F.Supp. 452, 458 (D.S.D.Ohio 1983). See also In re Loyd, 86 B.R. 663, 664 (Bankr. W.D.Okl.1988) (<HOLDING>) The debtors’ lawsuit in the state court
holding act qualifies as exemption statute under exemption 3 recognizing cause of action for loss of consortium holding a debtors claim for loss of consortium to be entitled to an exemption under the oklahoma exemption statute and collecting other bankruptcy decisions recognizing a debtor spouses loss of consortium as the basis for allowing an exemption under federal and various state exemption statutes recognizing loss of consortium claims holding one who claims tax exemption has burden of showing entitlement to exemption