IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Alton D. Brown, : Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 294 M.D. 2017

: Submitted: November 16, 2018 PA Commission on Crime : and Delinquency, : Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge

HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE BROBSON FILED: March 19, 2019

Before this Court is the Petition for Review (Petition) filed by Alton D.

Brown (Brown), which invokes this Court’s original and appellate jurisdictions. In

our appellate jurisdiction, Brown petitions for review of a determination of the

Office of Victims’ Services for the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and

Delinquency (Commission)

, which Brown contends denied his claim for

compensation under the Crime Victims Act (Act)

. 1 In our original jurisdiction,

Brown alleges that the Commission ’s actions in handling his compensation claim

violated his due proc ess and equal protection rights

. For the reasons set forth below,

we dismiss Brown’s appellate jurisdiction claims as premature, remand the appellate

1 Act of November 24, 1998, P.L. 882, as amended , 18 P.S. §§ 11.101

- .5102.2

jurisdiction matter to the Commission fo r the issuance of a final determination in

accordance with Section 704 of the Act

, 2 and dismiss Brown’s original jurisdiction

claims as moot.

In September 2014, Brown , an inmate at S tate C orrectional

I nstitution

- Greene, filed a claim with the Commission, seeking compensation under

the Act for certain expenses that he incurred as the v ictim of an alleged crime.

( Certified Record (C.R.), Item No. 1.) Brown alleged that he was the victim of an

“ongoing widespread retaliatory campaign” by the Pennsylvania De partment of

Corrections (Department) since at least 2006 due to his “litigious and iconoclastic

behavior” and , as a result thereof, has been subjected to “physical/psychological

abuse/torture, denial of medical care for serious illnesses, intentional aggra vation of

serious chronic illnesses, intentional interference with effort to fight convictions,

destruction/confiscation of property,” mail confiscatio n, and untreated broken

bones. ( Id. ) Brown sought co mpensation for future medical expenses for treatment

from an outside medical provider not associated with the Department, future

counseling expenses for treatment from an unbiased professional, loss of earnings,

and expenses for crime scene clean up

— i.e. , his “damaged body[,] which needs to

be c leaned as much as possible by the appropriate professionals.” ( Id. )

By letter dated October 5, 2015, the Commission acknowledged receipt

of Brown’s claim and advised Brown that the Commission had begun to process h is

claim. (C.R., Item No. 2.) More spe cifically, t he Commission’s Octobe r 5, 2015

letter provided , in relevant part :

The Victims Compensation Assistance Program [(Program)] received the claim form you filed requesting victim’s compensation assistance. This letter does not

2 18 P.S. § 11.704.3 mean your claim is a pproved for payment but only that we have begun to process it. You will need to provide the items listed on the checklist so we can begin to process your claim. If no checklist is attached, no additional information is needed at this time. . . .

( Id. ) A ttached to the Commission’s Octob er 5, 2015 letter was a checklist, which

provided, in pertinent part:

The following information is needed to process your claim : 1. According to documentation submitted to the Program, you are seeking reimbursement for los t wages. The Program requires that you be employed at the time of the crime and you are having taxes withheld in order to consider compensation for loss [sic] earnings. You indicated on your claim form that your employer at the time is not applicable. T herefore you are ineligible for loss of earnings compensation.
2. According to the documentation submitted, you are requesting reimbursement for crime

- scene cleanup. This benefit is intended to compensate for the reasonable and necessary costs for clean ing a private residential crime scene. Cleaning means to remove or attempt to remove blood or bodily fluid stains caused by the crime or other dirt and debris caused by the processing of the crime scene or stains from food, paint or other materials used t o deface property within a private residence. Therefore, you are ineligible for crime scene cleanup compensation.
3. You indicated on your form that you are a victim of ongoing retaliation by staff. The following policy is being provided to you: Any i nmate who is the victim of abuse should report the abuse in the following manner by filing a grievance in accordance with Department policy DC

- ADM 804, “Inmate4 Grievance System;” or by reporting it in writing to the Department’s Office of Special Investiga tions and Intelligence (OSII). We are unable to consider your request because [sic] is not an eligible expense under our Program.

( Id. (emphasis in original).) Brown responded to the Commission’s

October 5, 201 5 letter on March 8, 2016, advising the Comm ission that prison staff

had confiscated his files and requesting that the Commission send him copies of its

file. (C.R., Item No. 3.) On August 10, 2016, Brown again responded to t he

Commission’s October 5, 2015 letter, inter alia

, advising the Commission that he

ha d “submitted a very large amount of prison grievances and complaints with OSII

during the course of the retaliatory attacks upon [him]

, ” refuting the Commission’s

statements that he is not entitled to certain compensation under the Act , and

providing further detail of the alleged injuries that he has sustained as a result of the

Department’s actions and/or inactions

. (C.R., Item No. 5.) By letter dated

August 23, 2016, the Commission advised Brown as follows:

[The Commission] received your letter dated August 10th, 2016. You have requested that the [P]rogram assist you with arranging medical treatment and counseling outside of the [Department]. You have also requested assistance in obtaining documents that you do not have ac cess to. The [P]rogram is not able to make these arrangements as these are not services that the [P]rogram offers. The [P]rogram can assist with medical bills and counseling bills after the services have been provided and billed. The [P]rogram does not coordinate care or make arrangements for these services. If you feel that you are being denied reasonable medical care, counseling, or denial of your documents and property, [y]ou should contact your attorney and file a civil suit. You may also want to c ontact your State Legislator and make them [sic] aware of your concerns.5

(C.R., Item No. 6.) Brown appealed to this Court from t he Commission’s

August 23, 2016 letter.

On appeal, 3 Brown argues that the Commission committed an error of

law by: (1) fai ling to provide him with the opportunity to appeal the Commission’s

August 23, 2016 letter, which Brown characterizes as the Commission’s initial

denial of his claim for compensation

, and failing to provide him with the opportunity

for a hearing; (2) exclu ding prisoners from the victim compensation process

established by the Act and/or requiring that prisoners meet additional conditions not

required by the Act to be entitled to compensation; and (3) concluding that Brown

was not entitled to compensation und er the Act. In response, the Commission argues

that it properly determined that Brown was not eligible for compensation under the

Act.

An individual eligible for compensation under the Act , including a

direct victim of a crime, may file a claim for com pensation with the Commission

.

See Sections 701 and 702 of the Act. 4 The Commission is required to review the

claim and supporting documentation and then investigate the claim to determine its

validity. Section 704 (b) of the Act. The Commission’s investigation should include

“an examination of police, court and official records and reports concerning the

crime and an examination of medical and hospital reports relating to the injury upon

which the claim is based.” Id

. Following its investigation, the Commission is

required to make a determination regarding whether to grant an award or deny the

3 This Court’s standard of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether an error of law was committed, or whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administ rative Agency Law,

2 Pa. C.S. § 704.

4 18 P.S. §§ 11.701

- .702.6

claim. Section 704(c) of the Act. “If the [Commission] is unable to determine if a

claim is justified based upon the suppor ting documents, [the Commission] may

direct a hearing before a hearing examiner[,]” but it is not required to do so. Id.

Ultimately, the Commission may not make an award under the Act unless the

Commission determines by a preponderance of the evidence th at :

(1) A crime was committed.
(2) The person injured or killed was a direct victim or intervenor.
(3) The crime was promptly reported to the proper authorities. In no case may an award be made if the record shows that the report was made more than 72 hours after the occurrence of the crime unless:
(i) the victim is under 18 years of age at the time of the occurrence of the crime and the alleged offender is the victim’s parent or a person responsible for the victim’s welfare, an individual residing in the same home as the victim or a par amour of the victim’s parent; or
(ii) the [Commission] finds the delay to have been justified, consistent with bureau regulations.
(4) The direct victim, intervenor or claimant has fully cooperated with all law enforceme nt agencies and the [Commission] unless the [Commission] finds the noncompliance to have been justified consistent with [ the Commission’s] regulations.

Section 707(a) of the Act. 5 A claimant who is dissatisfied with the Commission’s

final determination ma y file an appeal within 30 days of his/her receipt of a copy of

the report containing such final determination in the manner set forth in Chapter 7,

5 18 P.S. § 11.707.7

Subchapter A of the Administrative Agency Law 6 for appeals from administrative

agencies. Section 705 of th e Act. 7

Here, the Commission did not issue a final determination on Brown’s

claim for compensation as required by Section 704 of the Act. First, t he

Commission’s October 5, 2015 letter provides Brown with conflicting information

. The letter clearly provi des that the Commission is processing his claim (as opposed

to approving or denying the claim). Although the letter includes a list of additional

“ information [that] is needed to process [Brown’s] claim,” the Commission includes

language therein characterizing Brown as inelig ible for certain compensation. ( See

C.R., Item No. 2.) Second, the Commission’s August 23, 2016 letter simply advised

Brown that the Commission cannot provide him with assistance in arranging outside

medical treatment or cou nseling services or in obtaining copies of certain

documentation because the Program does not offer such services. In neither letter

does the Commission make any determination as to whether it is approving or

denying Brown’s claim for compensation. For t hese reasons, we must conclude that

Brown’s appeal is premature

, because the Commission has not yet issued a final

determination on Brown’s claim for compensation as required by Section 704 of the

Act.

Accordingly, we dismiss Brown’s appellate jurisdictio n claims as

premature and remand the matter to the Commission for the issuance of a final

6 2 Pa. C.S. §§ 701

- 704.

7 18 P.S. § 11.705.8

determination in accordance with Section 704 of the Act and dismiss Brown’s

original jurisdiction claims as moot.

P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge

Judge Fizzano Cannon did not participate in the decision of this case.IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Alton D. Brown, : Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 294 M.D. 2017

: PA Commission on Crime : and D elinquency, : Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, thi s 19 th day of March , 201 9

, it is hereby ordered that

Petitioner Alton D. Brown’s (Brown) appellate jurisdiction claims are DISMISSED

as premature

, and the matter is remanded to the Office of Victims’ Services for the

Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency for the issuance of a final

determination in accordance with Section 704 of the Crime Victim’s Act, Act of

November 24, 1998, P.L. 882, as amended

, 18 P.S. § 11.704 . It is further ordered

that Brown’s original jurisdiction claims are DISMISSED as moot.

Jurisdiction relinquished.

P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge