Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

CLAIM MICHAEL MILBOURNE ETC. v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (05/04/84)

decided: May 4, 1984.

IN RE: CLAIM OF MICHAEL MILBOURNE ETC.
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA CRIME VICTIM'S COMPENSATION BOARD. MICHAEL MILBOURNE, PETITIONER



Appeal from the Order of the Pennsylvania Crime Victim's Compensation Board in case of In Re: Claim of Michael Milbourne, Claim No. 81-0074-B.

COUNSEL

David B. Sherman, with him, Lawrence Solomon, Rohm & Haas, for petitioner.

Gregory R. Neuhauser, Deputy Attorney General, with him, LeRoy S. Zimmerman, Attorney General, and Allen C. Warshaw, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.

Judges Craig, Doyle and Colins, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Colins.

Author: Colins

[ 82 Pa. Commw. Page 260]

This is a Petition for Review from an order and opinion of the Crime Victim's Compensation Board (Board), denying compensation to Michael Milbourne (claimant) pursuant to the Crime Victim's Compensation Act.*fn1

Claimant was shot in the abdomen inside a restaurant owned by Chung Po Wong, the alleged offender, in Southwest Philadelphia. Mr. Wong was subsequently found not guilty.

Claimant filed a claim for compensation in the amount of $21,043.50, for out-of-pocket losses for medical care, treatment and services resulting from the shooting. The Board member assigned to this claim

[ 82 Pa. Commw. Page 261]

    issued a summary denial, finding that "the claimant provoked the crime and that his conduct contributed to the infliction of his own injury."*fn2 The claimant then requested a hearing. A hearing was held before the Board, and the Board issued an Order and Opinion denying compensation, pursuant to Section 477.3(b), as amended, Section 180-7.3(b) and Section 477.9(f), as amended, Section 180-7.9(f).*fn3

Judicial review by this Court, when the party with the burden of proof*fn4 does not prevail below, is limited to a determination of whether or not constitutional rights were violated, an error of law was committed, or there was a capricious disregard of competent evidence. See Brown v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 67 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 246, 446 A.2d 1352 (1982).

[ 82 Pa. Commw. Page 262]

The claimant argues that the Board based its decision on inadmissible hearsay and, therefore, incompetent evidence. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the Board's decision ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.