Maria Nunez v. State of Illinois

ORDER

BIRNBAUM, J.

This case is before the Court on a motion by the Illinois Attorney General to reconsider the Court’s opinion of March 12, 2004. The Attorney General filed a motion to reconsider and withdrew it at the time she filed an amended motion to reconsider on March 21, 2008. This Court issued an Order on September 26, 2008 and the State filed a new Motion to Reconsider on January 26, 2009. In its January 26, 2009 Motion to Reconsider, Respondent accepts the Court’s construction of the Crime Victims Compensation Act, but requests that the Court reconsider some of its language. The Court finds Respondent’s January 26, 2009 motion to be persuasive. As such, this Modified Order incorporates many of the suggestions set forth in that motion.

The Attorney General’s Office points out and the Court takes notice of the fact that several others cases involving the same issue are currently pending before the Court (see e.g. Latesha Smith vs. State, 03 CV 3419 et al). It is our goal that this Modified Order be a vehicle to resolve those other claims.

[*283] In its March 21, 2008 amended Motion to Reconsider, the Attorney General argues that the Illinois Crime Victims Compensation Act precludes minors from seeking compensation for medical, hospital and other expenses, if not filed within two (2) years of the date of the occurrence of the crime. The Attorney General argues that under the Family Expense Act parents are legally responsible for expenses incurred in raising their children and therefore the claim is owned by the parent. This, Respondent argues, precludes, a child from asserting the tolling provision of the Illinois Crime Victims statute. That tolling provision states a child may file a claim for benefits within two (2) years of he or she obtaining the age of eighteen (18).

The State makes a similar argument as to a claim for loss of support. Respondent asserts this claim is owned by the parent and not the child.

For the reasons further articulated below, we deny the Attorney General’s Motion to Reconsider of March 21, 2008, but adopt the suggestions in the January 26, 2009 Motion.

The Crime Victims Compensation Act is a unique creation of the legislature. It is designed to provide a level of support and comfort to the innocent victims of crime.

In many of the crime victim cases involving minors that come before us, the child is at significant risk of suffering long term damage if not given medical and counseling services. For example, in some of these cases the child was a victim of abuse (see Smith vs. State, supra). It is critical that these children be given access to medical and other counseling services even when there is a delay in a request for reimbursement for these services. To deny these benefits to a child, an innocent victim of a crime runs contrary to the legislative purpose in providing this benefit. A child, deprived of necessary counseling will undoubtedly suffer long term harm. The wounded child, left untreated, suffers into adulthood. At times those wounds carry on to their children. All of society suffers.

The State uses an example when a child incurs $10,000 medical expenses. The child applies for an award upon reaching majority a check is issued to the child. State argues that reimbursed expenses may be used for illegitimate purposes. The Respondent’s motion states “The victim can cash the check and spend the money on whatever he likes, an I-POD, entertainment, food or even illegal drugs”.

The statute only provides for reimbursal of actual expenses. In the State’s example those expenses, in the ordinary course would be paid to the provider. No matter what, to deny compensation based upon other assumption the child will put the money to a bad purpose is not only cynical, it will result in great harm. If those expenses are not recoverable, the child’s parent or guardian may be inclined to forgo treatment for the child. It is critically important that these children receive counseling, and other necessary services. The same holds true for support. To place impediments to their ability to access those remedies (where through the negligent delay of their parent or otherwise) would be a great disservice to the child.

Using the test set out in Illinois Supreme Court Decision Walgreen Company vs. Industrial Commission, 323 Ill. 194, 197 153 N.E. 831, 833 (1926) children with meritorious causes of action should not be punished because their guardians failed to enforce their rights. A public policy of this state is that “courts should guard carefully the rights of minors, and that a minor should not be precluded from enforcing his rights unless clearly debarred from so doing by some statute or constitutional provision.” Walgreen Company vs. Industrial Commission, 323 Ill. 194, 197 153 N.E. 831, 833 (1926). The Compensation Act allows a person to file a claim within 2 years of the occurrence of the crime and within one year after a criminal indictment of a person for an offense upon which the claim is based. 720 ILCS 45/6.1(a). However, the Act also provides that an individual has two years to file after a legal disability, such as being a minor, has been removed. The Act does not preclude a minor from enforcing his rights; in fact, it protects the ability of a minor to apply once he is an adult. Therefore, a [*284] child should not be punished because the parent or guardian failed to protect the child’s rights by applying to the compensation program in a timely manner. When a claim involves a minor victim, the parent or guardian can apply to the program for benefits on behalf of the minor child until the child is 18. Upon reaching majority the now young adult can apply on his or her own behalf until his or her 20th birthday.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this claim is referred back to the Office of the Attorney General for further investigation and an amended investigatory report.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if compensation is found to be warranted, it should be paid in accordance with Sections 10.1 and 18 of the Act.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that if compensation is found to be a warranted for loss of support, payment should be reimbursed to the parent or guardian of the minor at the time that individual had minority status, and it should be paid in accordance with Sections 10.1, 11.1 and 18 of the Act.