It is an asset, which is why I included that term. And what assets are exempt from attachment are defined in the law. We've told you what the law says with regard to personal injury awards.
If the asset or income that the person is planning to use for hte medical treatment is not exempt from attachment, then yes, it could be seized by creditors to pay his debts. That he plans to use the money for future medical treatment does not get that asset protected. If emergency medical treatment is needed to save that arm or he cannot afford to pay for medical care, there are resources available to people for that. Emergency rooms cannot turn away patients based on ability to pay, for example. And programs like Medicaid provide medical care to those unable to pay for health insurance on their own.
What you are not grasping here is that the law defines what is exempt from attachment and whatever your own feelings about it, the law does allow these funds to be attached, at least over a certain amount.
I note that you pointedly avoided discussing the issue I raised about the basis for the judgment being in significant part the medical bills and other expenses that the injured person had incurred and that it would certainly be odd if at least those creditors couldn't reach the money he was awarded to pay those people. Do you not see a problem there if the law made the award entirely exempt from attachment?

