84-CC-1967 Washburn, Roland & Sandra 69.05 84-CC-2747 Western States Fleet & Farm 17.90 CRIME VICTIMS COMPENSATION ACT Where person is victim of violent crime as defined in the Act; has suffered pecuniary loss of $200.00 or more; notified and cooperated fully with law enforce- ment officials immediately after the crime; the victim and the assailant were not related and sharing the same household; the injury was not substantially attributable to the victim’s wrongful act or substantial provocation; and his claim was filed in the Court of Claims within one year of the date of injury, compensation is payable under the Act. OPINIONS PUBLISHED IN FULL FY 1985 (Claim denied.) In re PETITION OF L~UELLA REAVES.
Headnotes
- LOUELLA N EIL F. HARTIGAN, Attorney General (A LI N BRESLAUER, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.
- CRIME VICTIMSCOMPENSATION Am-son killed-untimely notice of cloirn-claim denied. A mother’s claim arising from the killing of her son was denied, since her claim was not timely filed, and she offered no oral or documentary evidence which would have justified an extension of the normal deadline for filing a claim under the Crime Victims Compensation Act other than the contention that she was upset over her son’s death and was unaware of the Act, and that was insufficient. I
- ORDER ON PETITION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
This cause coming on to be heard on the petition of applicant, Louella Reaves, for an extension of time to file necessary documents in submission of her application for benefits under the Crime Victims Compensation Act; Based upon the information contained in said petition and the discretion vested in us by the Crime Victims Compensation Act, we find that Claimant has failed to state good and sufficient cause for an extension of the filing deadline.
Petition denied.
OPINION
HOLDERMAN, J. The Claimant in this cause had filed a petition seeking a hearing on the Court’s order of September 7, 1984, for an extension of time in which to file a notice under the Crime Victims Compensation Act and was denied. The commissioner’s report indicates that a hearing was scheduled and presided over on March 13, 1985, at 1O:OO a.m. The commissioner’s report is to the effect that the Claimant did not offer any oral or documentary evidence at that time to establish good and sufficient cause as is required by the Act to allow for an extension of the filing deadline.
The record in this case indicates that the incident in question took place on February 25,1983. The notice of intent to file the claim was filed on June 7, 1984.
The explanation of the late filing was that the [*429] Claimant, who was the mother of the individual killed, was hurt and upset over her son’s death and that she was not aware of the Crime Victims Compensation Act. ~ This petition was filed some 18 months after the ~ date of the incident in question.
I The court is of the opinion that the explanation given for the late filing is not sufficient and therefore the petition is denied. Case dismissed. .: