Williams v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board

MURPHY, Chief Judge. Maryland Code (1981 Repl.Vol.), Article 26A, entitled “Criminal Injuries Compensation Act,” provides for monetary awards in certain circumstances to innocent victims of crime. This case involves a claim for benefits under the Act, sought by an individual who was criminally assaulted and as a result was blinded in one eye. The question presented is whether, under the Act’s provisions, the victim is entitled to a monetary award for permanent partial disability for loss of an eye, even though he returned to work without diminution in earnings.

(1) The “Declaration of policy and legislative intent” underlying the 1968 passage of the Act, as set forth in § 1, states: “The legislature recognizes that many innocent persons suffer personal physical injury or death as a result of criminal acts or in their efforts to prevent crime or apprehend persons committing or attempting to commit crimes. Such persons or their dependents may thereby suffer disability, incur financial hardships or become dependent upon public assistance. The legislature finds and determines that there is a need for government financial assistance for such victims of crime. Accordingly, it is the legislature’s intent that aid, care and support be provided by the State, as a matter of moral responsibility, for such victims of crime.” ⁶⁰⁸ Section 3 of the Act creates the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board which is empowered by § 4, among other things, to hear and determine all claims for awards.

Section 7 provides: “An award may not be made on a claim unless the claimant has incurred a minimum out-of-pocket loss of one hundred dollars or has lost at least two continuous weeks’ earnings or support. Out-of-pocket loss means reimbursed and unreimbursable expenses or indebtedness reasonably incurred for medical care, mental health counseling, funeral expenses, or other services necessary as a result of the injury upon which such claim is based.” Section 12(b) provides, with certain exceptions not here pertinent, that “[a]ny award made pursuant to this article shall be made in accordance with the schedule of benefits and degree of disability as specified in Article 101 [the Workmen’s Compensation Act], § 36 (as it existed on July 1, 1974), § 37, and other applicable sections of the Code____ However, the term ‘average weekly wages’ as applied to determine the award in accordance with § 36 of Article 101, does not include tips, gratuities and wages that are undeclared on the claimant’s State or federal income tax returns in the applicable years. If a claimant does not have ‘average weekly wages’ so as to qualify under the formula in § 36 of Article 101, the award shall be in an amount equal to the arithmetic average between the maximum and minimum awards listed in the applicable portion of that section.” 1 Section 12(f)(1) and (2) provide: “(f)(1) If the Board ... finds that the claimant will not suffer serious financial hardship, as a result of the loss of ⁶⁰⁹ earnings or support and the out-of-pocket expenses incurred as a result of the injury, if not granted financial assistance pursuant to this article to meet the loss of earnings, support, or out-of-pocket expenses, the Board ... shall deny an award. In determining the serious financial hardship, the Board ... shall consider all of the financial resources of the claimant____ (2) The conditions of paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply in determining an award under paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) of § 5(a) of this article.”* 2 (2) Maser Williams was criminally assaulted on January 22, 1982 and thereafter filed his claim for benefits under the Act.

Following a hearing, the Board, on June 30, 1984, awarded Williams $2,139.23 for unreimbursed medical expenses and $398.97 for 2 weeks and 3 days’ temporary total disability, representing lost time from work. The Board declined to make an award for permanent partial disability for the loss of Williams’ eye, concluding that because he “returned to work with no diminution in earnings, ... [he] does not have a serious financial hardship as is required by ⁶¹⁰ Section 12(f) of the Statute for an award for his alleged permanent partial disability.” On appeal to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Williams maintained that § 12(b) required a monetary award for permanent partial disability in accordance with the schedule of benefits set forth in § 36(3) of Article 101—for the loss of an eye, 250 weeks of compensation based on Williams’ average weekly wage computed under the payment formula contained in § 36(3)(c). While conceding that § 12(f)(1) requires a showing of serious financial hardship as a prerequisite to an award, Williams argued that he made such a showing, as indicated by his award for medical expenses and lost earnings. Having once been made, Williams maintained that serious financial hardship need not again be separately demonstrated as to his permanent impairment and claim for permanent partial disability.

The circuit court affirmed the Board’s order and on further appeal the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the judgment of the circuit court. Williams v. Criminal Injuries Comp. Bd., 65 Md.App. 486 , 501 A.2d 105 (1985). In concluding that Williams was not entitled to an award for permanent partial disability in the absence of present economic loss, the intermediate appellate court read § 1 of the Act, setting forth the legislative declaration of policy and intent, in conjunction with § 12(f)(1), deeming it apparent therefrom “that the legislature’s intent was not to make the victim whole, but to ameliorate serious financial losses sustained as a result of the victim’s injuries.” 65 Md.App. at 491 , 501 A.2d 105 .

Writing for the court, Chief Judge Gilbert held that § 12(f)(1) mandates a denial of an award where the victim does not suffer serious financial hardship as a result of the criminal activity. Nothing in the Act, the court said, “was intended as a panacea for damages or injuries arising from crime,” but rather the Act’s purpose was “to provide recompense to crime victims who otherwise will suffer serious financial hardship.” Id. at 492, 501 A.2d 105 . Upon Williams’ petition, we granted certiorari to consider the important issue raised in the case. ⁶¹¹ (3) We first reviewed the history of the Act and its various provisions in Criminal Inj. Comp.

Bd. v. Gould, 273 Md. 486 , 331 A.2d 55 (1975). At that time, we observed that Maryland was but the fifth state “to establish a program permitting the unreimbursed victims of crime to be compensated by funds appropriated by the state for their personal injuries and loss of earnings, if the victim would otherwise suffer serious financial hardship.” 3 273 Md. at 495-96 , 331 ⁶¹² A.2d 55. Prerequisite to any award, we said, was “the incurring of ‘serious financial hardship/ ” the payment of benefits under the Act being “predicated upon the schedule of benefits and degree of disability reflected in the Workmen’s Compensation Act.” Id. at 496, 331 A.2d 55 . In commenting upon the Act’s passage, we said: “The General Assembly, conceding an inability to ameliorate to any degree the threat of violent crime, and undertaking to assume the consequences of such crime as a public burden, on the ground of ‘moral responsibility/ in enacting Art. 26A was embarking on uncharted waters in a noble social experiment without any real background data of experience.

The recent nature of this type of legislation, the uncertain estimate of the volume of claims to be made under the Act, and the incalculable amount of the funds required to be appropriated for its administration confronted our lawmakers when they adopted this ‘welfare-theory’ of compensation. See Comment, Criminal Victim Compensation in Maryland, [30 Md.L.Rev. 266]. The statutory scheme for eligibility, the prerequisites for awards and the computation of benefits were all novel. Since the funds to be disbursed were public there can be sensed a legislative hesitancy on disbursement without some restraint.” Id. at 498 , 331 A.2d 55 .

In Holmes v. Crim. Injuries Comp. Bd., 278 Md. 60 , 359 A.2d 84 (1976), we again emphasized that § 12(f)(1) “requires a mandatory denial of an award to claimants who do not suffer serious financial hardship as a result of the ⁶¹³ criminal activity.” 278 Md. at 65 , 359 A.2d 84 . We noted that § 12(f)(1) “specifies that serious financial hardship must result from the loss of earnings, support or out-of-pocket expenses.” Id.

The statute requires a denial of an award, we said, “if, and only if, the Board determines that the claimant will not suffer serious financial hardship as a result of the loss of earnings or support and that he will not suffer such hardship as a result of out-of-pocket expenditures. If either finding cannot be made, or, in other words, if serious financial hardship does result from either the loss of earnings or support or from out-of-pocket expenses, then § 12(f)(1) does not require that the Board deny benefits. Only where no hardship results from the loss of earnings or support, or from expenditures, does § 12(f)(1) mandate the denial of an award. “This conclusion is also supported by other language contained in § 12(f)(1) which provides that an award shall be denied where no serious financial hardship would result if the claimant is ‘not granted financial assistance pursuant to this article to meet the loss of earnings, support, or out-of-pocket expenses.’ (Emphasis supplied.) As is indicated by this provision, the types of losses necessary to sustain a finding of serious financial hardship, namely ‘the loss of earnings, support, or out-of-pocket expenses,’ are set forth in the disjunctive, and any one such type of loss may alone support a determination that the requisite hardship exists.” Id. at 65, 359 A.2d 84 . * * * * * * “The plain language of § 12(f)(1), therefore, as well as the need to harmonize that section with the various other provisions of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, compels the conclusion that serious financial hardship under § 12(f)(1) need not result solely from out-of-pocket expenditures, but may also occur as a result of the loss of earnings or the loss of support alone.” Id. at 66-67, 359 A.2d 84 . ⁶¹⁴ In Holmes , we were concerned with the loss of normal domestic services for a family due to the murder of the mother, and whether the economic value of such a loss constituted a loss of “support” within the contemplation of § 12(f)(1). We concluded that such a loss was properly considered in determining whether “serious financial hardship” was incurred as a result of the victim’s death.

To establish such hardship, we explained, does not necessarily require a showing of out-of-pocket expenditures but may be demonstrated by a showing of loss of “support” alone, notwithstanding the absence of out-of-pocket expenses or loss of earnings. Thus, we indicated that the Board must consider loss of earnings, or support, and losses due to out-of-pocket expenses as separate items in assessing the existence of financial hardship under the statute. Id. at 67, 359 A.2d 84 . See also Gossard v. Criminal Inj.

Comp. Bd., 279 Md. 309 , 368 A.2d 443 (1977); McGee v. Criminal Inj. Comp. Bd., 57 Md.App. 143 , 469 A.2d 470 (1984).

Our cases thus make clear that it is the plain and unambiguous language of Art. 26A which must be applied in determining eligibility for an award. For example, § 7 flatly precludes any award unless the innocent crime victim has incurred minimum out-of-pocket expenditures of $100, or suffered a loss of two continuous weeks’ earnings or support. Therefore, a crime victim who sustains a permanent partial disability, no matter how grievous, but who does not satisfy the minimum eligibility requirements would in no event be eligible for benefits under the Act. Moreover, under the Act’s provisions, § 12(f)(1), a crime victim is not entitled to any award unless, by reason of serious financial hardship, “ ‘financial