Opinion ID: 1464550
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Undue Financial Hardship

Text: In the final three paragraphs of its decision, DOES addressed the issue of undue financial hardship. [17] Here, DOES was dealing with that portion of the Act which limits payments for proven economic losses. In pertinent part, the relevant section, D.C.Code § 3-403(c)(1), reads: An award of compensation shall be denied if it is determined that the claimant will not suffer undue financial hardship if not granted financial assistance pursuant to this chapter. A claimant suffers undue financial hardship if the claimant cannot maintain the customary level of health, safety, and education for himself or herself or his or her dependents. In determining whether the claimant will suffer undue financial hardship, all relevant factors shall be taken into consideration, including, but not limited to: (A) The number of the claimant's dependents; (B) the usual and ordinary living expenses of the claimant and the claimant's dependents; (C) any special needs of the claimant and the claimant's dependents; (D) the claimant's income and potential earning capacity; and (E) the claimant's resources. If the claimant is 65 years of age or older, the value of the claimant's house and any savings up to an amount of $10,000 shall not be taken into consideration in determining whether the claimant will suffer undue financial hardship. The first application that DOES makes of this section is to hold [f]urther, this Examiner sees no loss of the victim's services to cause an undue hardship. [18] Reference is then made to the fact that the three adults can do the chores in less than an hour a day each. Thus, under DOES's approach, a direct tie seems to be made between the nature of the economic loss and the undue financial hardship that would occur if the monetary award were not made. [19] Otherwise put, DOES appears to read the section as requiring that the inability to maintain the customary level of health, safety, and education must flow directly from the losses caused by the victim's death, [20] although we may err in this understanding of DOES's interpretation. Petitioners' argument, on the other hand, in its subtlest sense, is that once a determination is made that a compensable economic loss has occurred, the determination of whether failure to pay the award will cause undue financial hardship should be made wholly apart from the specific economic loss underlying the award; that is, it need not be assumed that the petitioner will spend the money awarded directly to compensate for the economic loss suffered. Thus, petitioner asserts that once the value of the lost services is determined, in this case a claimed $201 a month, the issue is not whether the services can be performed by other members of the family but rather whether without receiving an additional $201 a month, the claimants will be unable to maintain [their] customary level of health, safety, and education. For example, a claimant might lose a job sometime after the death of the victim but for reasons totally unrelated to the crime or his health may decline requiring additional medical expenditures; in such circumstances, he may very well need the crime compensation award to maintain his customary level of living, although not spending it to replace the lost services. In the last two paragraphs of its decision, DOES expands upon the subject of undue financial hardship. It states that it has taken into account all relevant factors, including those set forth in § 3-403(c)(1), as well as the fact that claimants' income and resources are greater than their expenses, and concludes that this result [presumably denial of the claim] is mandated by the Act. A principal focus of the hearing before the DOES examiner and of the argument on appeal has been on the issue whether petitioners fall within the no undue financial hardship exception. This is quite understandable since that was the stated basis for the denial of the claim in OCVC's preliminary determination. However, the question of undue financial hardship is of course not reached if the claimant is not otherwise entitled to financial assistance under the Act, i.e., has not suffered uncompensated economic loss. As indicated, the DOES in its decision finally denying the claim may have effectively determined, under its interpretation of the Act, that the claimants had in fact not suffered any economic loss for either support or services. If we are correct in our understanding, then the discussion of undue financial hardship is at most a cumulative or alternative ground unnecessary to the decision. [21] We might add that our uncertainty on this point is confirmed by a reading of the testimony at the hearing given by Eric Cox, an officer of the Crime Victims Compensation Program. In explaining why OCVC had denied the claim in its preliminary determination, he testified: Well, we proceeded to deny them due to the fact that they did not really qualify for the loss of support since at no time did they note to us thatUlyssus [ sic ] Morris, the victim was providing 50 percent or more of their income. Truly, from statements that they made there was a loss of service, upkeep of the home and that sort of thing, but not to the point that this office saw that three adults could not clean up behind themselves, who were the remaining adults in that household. We did not foresee them having the need of a maid. And, statements made such as trash piling upthis office took them to the count with that. That thosesurviving members of the family were the people who were making the trash. So, naturally, they should have been able to take the trash out. These are the basis that the office denied the claim. I have notnot suffering any undue financial hardship. Thus, the bulk of the quoted testimony seems to support a determination of no economic loss under the possible interpretations discussed earlier in this opinion, rather than no undue financial hardship.