 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kato v. State Board of Control11/3/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Petitioner, Franck K., seeks a writ of mandate directing the Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board to authorize payment to him based on a claim he filed in 1976. We affirm the trial court's denial of Franck's petition for mandate. Franck has not shown that (1) he is entitled to the relief he seeks; (2) the denial of his claim was an abuse of discretion; or (3) the 25 year delay in pursuing his remedies was justified by his mental illness.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Franck suffers from mental illness and was found disabled by an administrative law judge in July 1976. The administrative law judge concluded that the disability began in 1974.
The record includes an information alleging that Franck was the victim of an assault with a deadly weapon, and a judgment against the same defendant for child molestation. The judgment does not name Franck as the victim, but, for purposes of this appeal, we accept as true Franck's representation that he was the victim.
On September 27, 1976, Franck applied to the Victim's Compensation Fund. Franck's application was denied because he did not return a questionnaire sent by the Board of Control (now named the Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board) on September 29, 1976. On April 27, 1977, the Board of Control sent Franck a letter stating that it would "deny his application for lack of cooperation and information" on June 6, 1977 unless he submitted the questionnaire prior to that date. Franck did not submit the requested questionnaire, and his application was denied by letter sent June 10, 1977.
On June 7, 1978, The Board of Control sent Franck a letter regarding appeal procedures. That letter thanks Franck for his requested information, but Franck's letter is not included in the record. The Board of Control's letter directs Franck's attention to Government Code section 13969.1, subdivision (c)(1), which was added in 1977 and provided: "Judicial review of a final decision made pursuant to this article may be had by filing a petition for a writ of mandate in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. . . . [ ] here no request for reconsideration is made, within 30 days of personal delivery or within 60 days of the mailing of the board's decision on the application for assistance."
On April 16, 2002, almost 25 years after his application was denied, Franck filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking review of the Board of Control's 1977 decision. Franck's petition alleges that he "remember filling out an initial form and then the weight of the event, the incident, the paperwork, became too much for me to handle."
The trial court denied Franck's application, finding that the Board of Control did not abuse its discretion in denying the application. Franck appealed.
DISCUSSION
Based on the current record, the trial court could not grant the relief requested by Franck - an order directing the Government Claims and Compensation Board to allow his claim. Under the version of section 13959 in effect at the time Franck filed his claim, to be eligible for relief the claimant must have "as the direct result of a crime suffer a pecuniary loss which they are unable to recoup without suffering serious financial hardship." Pecuniary loss was defined as "the amount of me
Page 1 2 3 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|