In re APPLICATION OF VIRGINIA KOFINEDER.
Case summary
Claimant sought crime victim compensation for the death of her husband, but the court dismissed the claim because she failed to show a pecuniary loss of $200 or more after accounting for collateral benefits received under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The court rejected her estoppel argument against the Attorney General's representations.
Statutes cited: Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 70, par. 73(b)
Cases cited: Pro v. Brophy, 120 P.2d 946; Hughes v. Illinois Public Aid Commission, 2 Ill. 2d 374, 118 N.E.2d 14; Zsko Co. v. State, 4 Ill. Ct. Cl. 171; Lord v. Bushnell v. State, 13 Ill. Ct. Cl. 189; Harbech v. State, 13 Ill. Ct. Cl. 70
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- NEIL F. HARTIGAN, Attorney General (L YNN ROSENTHAL M AYER , Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent. fights of state cannot be waived b y
- PRACTlCE AND PR~EDvRE-subSf~nti~e officers without authority.
- CRIME VrcnMs COMPENSATION Am-pecuniary loss not shown-claim dismissed. Required pecuniary loss of $200 or more was not shown where Claimant received collateral benefits under Workers’ Compensation Act and State was not estopped by representations of Attorney General’s office that those collateral benefits would not be recognized when considering benefits under the Crime Victims Compensation Act.
This cause was heard on oral argument at the request of Claimant, to deny the motion of the Attorney General to dismiss the claim for the reason that claim has failed to show a pecuniary loss of $200 or more as required by section 3(b) of the Crime Victims Compensation Act. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 70, par. 73(b).
The thrust of Claimant’s argument is that because of the representation of the Attorney General’s office to Claimant’s attorney that there would be no exclusion to the compensation received by Claimant under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the State is estopped by such representations, and that this cause was filed on behalf of the minor children of the deceased victim, Louis Korneder, because under the award no direct payment was made to them.
The Court finds:
1. That the Attorney General is subject to the general rule that State officers can neither waive substantive rights of the State without explicit authority nor create estoppel which would operate against public policy. Pro v . Brophy, 120 P.2d 946, Hughes v . Zllinois Public Aid Commission, 2 Ill. 2d 374, 118 N.E.2d 14, Zsko Co. v . State, 4 Ill. Ct. C1. 171, Lord 9?7 Bushnell v . State, 13 111. Ct. C1. 189, Harbech v . State, 13 Ill. Ct. C1. 70.
2. The decision of the arbitrator stated, “It is hereby ordered that this award and each of the installments thereof shall be paid to said widow, for her use and benefit and for the care, education, and maintenance of said minor children”.
Based upon the above the State is not estopped by the representations of the Attorney General and the minor children were compensated under the decision of the arbitrator in the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
[*1003] The Court finds that as a result of the Claimant’s collateral benefits, she has failed to show a pecuniary loss of $200 or more as required by section 3(b) of the Crime Victims Compensation Act. 111. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 70, par. 73(b).
It is therefore hereby ordered, that the claim of Virginia Korneder, be and is hereby dismissed.