Kurker v. Commonwealth

52 Mass. App. Dec. 34
CourtMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division
DecidedMay 28, 1973
DocketNo. 8028; No. V.L. 4/69
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 52 Mass. App. Dec. 34 (Kurker v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kurker v. Commonwealth, 52 Mass. App. Dec. 34 (Mass. Ct. App. 1973).

Opinion

Forte, J.

This is a petition under'G.L. C. 258A commenced in the Third District Court of Eastern Middlesex wherein the petitioner seeks to recover- compensation as a victim of a violent crime.

The Attorney General filed his. report neither [35]*35admitting nor denying the claim pending investigation.

The trial judge found for the petitioner in the amount of $7,900.00.

§ 2 of Chapter 258A gives jurisdiction of such petitions to the District Courts and the right of review by the Appellate Division is granted by G.L. C.231, §108 as amended.

At the trial' there was] evidence tending to show that on September 25,- 1971 while employed as a construction worker at $162.00 per week, the petitioner" was a victim of an assault and battery, reported to the police within 48 hours; that the petitioner was treated at: a hospital for a broken nose, facial knife wounds, a compound fracture of' the left elbow, and neck and spine bruises; As a result óf the injuries sustained the petitioner was disabled for 115 weeks, amounting.-to lost wages of $18,-630.00. The evidence further indicates that all medical bills were paid by an insurance program. and- that the petitioner received- $10,-630.00 from Workmen’s Compensation Insurance,. ■

At the close of the evidence and before final argument, the respondent filed five requests for rulings, only the fourth and fifth requests are material, to wit:

“4. Chapter 258A of the General' Laws provides for compensation to victims of violent crimes not to exceed $10,- ; 000*00 which -is to ,.be reduced by [36]*36amount of any payment received as a result of the injury under insurance programs or from public funds.

5. The evidence requires a finding for the respondent.”

The trial judge denied both requests.

The Commonwealth’s argument is that $10,-000.00 is the maximum recoverable under G.L. C.258A and any payments received under insurance programs shall be deducted from that $10,000.00 figure.

Here, the claimant received from insurance programs $10,630.00 and payment of all his medical bills. Therefore, the Commonwealth argues the petitioner having received an amount from insurance exceeding $10,000.00, is not entitled to an award.

In Gurley et al v. Commonwealth,-Mass. -1 the Supreme Judicial Court decided that “the ‘actual loss sustained’ is determined by deducting the benefits received as a result of the injury from the total loss sustained by the petitioner.” „ .

Therefore, in the instant case, the total loss sustained being greater than the benefits received by $8,000.00, the trial judge was correct in awarding the claimant the $8,000.00 less the statutory deduction of $100.00,2 or an award of $7,900.00.3

George K. Kurker for Plaintiff. Brian T. O’Neill, Deputy Ass’t Attorney General for Defendant.

The trial court’s rulings and findings are sustained.

Howard v. Commonwealth, 24 Legalite 102.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Schneiderman v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts
59 Mass. App. Dec. 134 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
52 Mass. App. Dec. 34, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kurker-v-commonwealth-massdistctapp-1973.