Opinion ID: 1464550
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Loss of Support

Text: With respect to loss of support, petitioners presented evidence that their son contributed earnings from odd jobs of about $30 per week to household expenses. They thus calculated their total economic loss in this regard as $52,416. The figure was arrived at by multiplying $30 by 52 weeks by the 33.6-years' life expectancy of the mother. Since the statutory cap on awards is $25,000, under § 3-403(b), the claim was necessarily limited to that maximum. Two possible problems exist with this analysis. One is that no offset is made to reflect the fact that claimants no longer are liable for outlays to support their minor son. This reveals a possibly more fundamental obstacle to recoverythat claimants in their category may not be able to recover economic loss of the type they are claiming. It seems illogical to say that a claimant is eligible to file a claim because he is responsible for the maintenance and support of a victim and then allow recovery for loss of the victim's support. It is the claimant who is supporting the victim, not vice versa. The contribution by the son of $30 per week simply reduces the amount of support necessary for the claimants to provide him; it is not necessarily a separate economic loss resulting from the death of the victim. This reading of the statute is supported by certain language in the statute and the legislative history. Section 3-401(1)(C), which defines claimants, requires that a person responsible for the maintenance and support of a victim must also be one who incurs expenses on behalf of the victim for economic loss incurred as a result of the injury or death of the victim. (Emphasis added.) This could be read to exclude such claimants from seeking loss of support or loss of services under §§ 3-401(5)(B)(ii) and (iii), and instead to restrict this type of claimant to expenses incurred for medical treatment and funeral expenditures on behalf of the victim. See §§ 3-401(5)(B)(i) and (iv). Furthermore, the report accompanying the proposed act describing the relevant section, § 3-401(5)(B), states: The second item of economic loss is loss of the victim's support. This includes financial support that the victim would have provided to the dependent had the victim survived.  (Emphasis added.) Council of the District of Columbia Report, Bill No. 4-361 (1981) at 7. If DOES indeed interprets the Act in this manner, it would explain the fact that DOES in its consideration of the claimed loss of the victim's support did so solely in the context of the claimants' status as dependents of the victim. DOES sets forth a number of substantially unchallenged facts establishing that the claimants did not meet the definition of dependent in the statute, [8] and concluded that therefore no economic loss has been shown for loss of victim's support. Clearly if DOES does in fact interpret the Act as allowing only a dependent to make such a claim, the failure to prove dependency disposes of the issue. On the other hand, there are also indications that persons responsible for the maintenance of a victim are not automatically barred from claiming loss of support under the Act. First, § 3-401(5)(B) defines economic loss for a dependent or person responsible for the maintenance of a victim without expressly stating that subsections (ii) loss of support and (iii) loss of services do not apply to persons responsible for the maintenance of a victim. Second, the implementing DOES regulations may suggest that claimants can make out a loss of support claim without showing that they are dependents as defined in the statute. DOES Rule 109.5, 29 D.C.Reg. 5211-13 (1982), sets forth the procedure for computing loss of support. DOES Rule 109.5(c) governs petitioners, as parents of the victim. [9] This section makes no provision for establishing the dependency of the parents on the child-victim. However, the next section, DOES Rule 109.5(d), governs claimants who are dependent for principal support upon the victim and that section explicitly requires a finding of 50% support of the claimant by the victim. If DOES Rule 109.5 subsections a-e are read independently, [10] then under this analysis, parents of victims like petitioners could recover loss of support if they could show that there is a net loss in the household. DOES Rule 109.5(c). In this case, petitioners presumably would have had to show that they expended on the victim less than the $30 per week the victim brought into the family. [11] It does not appear that DOES performed this calculation in reaching its conclusion that no economic loss had been shown. [12]