Siler v. Dept. of Employment Services, 86-1049.
| Decision Date | 18 May 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-1049.,86-1049. |
| Citation | 525 A.2d 620 |
| Parties | Harry SILER, Petitioner, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, Respondent. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Harry E. Siler, pro se.
James R. Murphy, Acting Corp. Counsel, Charles L. Reischel, Deputy Corp. Counsel, and Charlotte Brookins-Pruitt, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Washington, D.C., were on brief, for respondent.
Before NEBEKER and BELSON, Associate Judges, and REILLY, Senior Judge.
This is a petition for review of a final order of the Department of Employment Services (the Department) denying a compensation claim filed under D.C.Law § 4-100, the Victims of Violent Crimes Compensation Act of 1981, D.C.Code §§ 3-401 to -415 (1986 Supp.). We affirm.
According to his pro se brief, petitioner Harry E. Siler was entitled to compensation under the Act because his injury was inflicted by one Cynthia Forman in an assault, for which she was arrested and convicted.1 Petitioner was hospitalized for treatment, and states that because of having to undergo physical therapy after his release, he was unable to work and eventually lost his job.
The purpose of the new Act under which relief was sought is "[t]o provide compensation to innocent victims of violent crime who have no other source of compensation. . . ." See D.C.Law § 4-100 preamble. It is currently being administered by a unit of the Department called the Division of Disability and Crime Compensation. A claims examiner employed in that division rejected the claim after reviewing police and hospital records. Those records disclosed that in an "altercation" with his girlfriend, she had stabbed him in the neck with a piece of broken glass.
The examiner's preliminary determination stated that because these reports showed that the claimant was "involved in an altercation with the offender" at the time he sustained the injuries, an award of compensation should be denied. This determination cited the rules and regulations, 29 D.C.Reg. 5198 (Nov. 7, 1982), promulgated under the statute as compelling this conclusion.
The particular regulation, Rule 109.9, provides:
Compensation may be reduced, reconsidered or denied because of misconduct of the victim or claimant that contributed to the crime. Misconduct includes, but is not limited to the following:
(a) The victim initiated, consented to, aggravated or prolonged a physical confrontation with the offender; or
(b) The victim was participating in an illegal drug transaction; drunk in public, creating a public disorder, frequenting a place of prostitution, frequenting a place where drugs or alcohol are illegally bought, sold or consumed; frequenting a place where illegal gambling is conducted; or participating in any other illegal conduct.
Rule 109.9, 29 D.C.Reg. 5215 (1982).
Whether the quoted regulation is a valid construction of the statute is a question we need not decide. Rule 106.2, 29 D.C.Reg. 5207 (1982), provides that once notified of a preliminary determination:
If within fifteen (15) working days the claimant does not inform the Office as to whether a hearing is desired or whether the determination is agreed to, the determination shall become final. Form No. 7 DCCV "Notice of Final Determination" shall be mailed to the claimant. Such notice shall contain the same information as found in Section 106.1(a), and (b) above.
According to the record before us, petitioner was advised by letter dated May 21, 1986, not only of the claims examiner's determination, but also of his right to request a hearing within the 15 — day period under the rules. Enclosed was a "Form No. 7 DCCV," along with a hearing request form. Such a hearing would have afforded petitioner an opportunity to show that he neither "consented to" nor "prolonged the confrontation" nor "participated in any other illegal conduct." By not filing such a request, he waived this opportunity. He offers no explanation for his inaction.
Under familiar principles of administrative law, such failure to exhaust administrative remedies bars petitioner from judicial review. Jennings v. Gilberston, 74 A.2d 839, 841 (D.C.1950) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heft v. Maryland Racing Com'n
...judicial review of the merits. See, e.g., Brennan v. Winters Battery Mfg. Co., supra, 531 F.2d at 324-325; Siler v. Dept. of Employment Services, 525 A.2d 620, 622 (D.C.App.1987). Apart from principles of administrative law, and even if the Commission's regulations had not provided for an a......
-
Artis-Bey v. District of Columbia, No. 03-CV-220.
...is also stated in writing." IGP § VII(F)(7). 15. We reject the District's argument, relying on Siler v. District of Columbia Dep't of Employment Servs., 525 A.2d 620, 622 (D.C. 1987), that where a regulation permits—but does not require—a particular step in the administrative process, a cla......
-
Morris v. D.C. Dept. of Emp. Services, 85-234.
... ... Ulyses MORRIS, et al., Petitioners, ... DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, Respondent ... No. 85-234 ... District of Columbia Court of Appeals ... Argued ... ...
-
George Washington Univ. V. D.C. Bd. of App., 85-1658.
...application and the certificate grants to the other hospitals. See § 32-310, supra. Cf. Siler v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services, 525 A.2d 620, 622 (D.C. 1987). Thus, in our view, this court lacks jurisdiction over the GW appeal at this time. But even if we were to co......