State v. Delong

• Decision Date: 22 May 2020
• Docket Number: No. 18-1763,18-1763
• Citation: 943 N.W.2d 600
• Parties: STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Eddie Donovan DELONG, Appellant.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

943 N.W.2d 600

STATE of Iowa, Appellee,

v.Eddie Donovan DELONG, Appellant.

No. 18-1763

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed May 22, 2020

Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Maria Ruhtenberg, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Louis S. Sloven, Assistant Attorney General, and Ryan R. Kolpin, County Attorney, for appellee.

APPEL, Justice.

In this case, we consider whether a district court’s restitution order based upon testimony and exhibits submitted by the Crime Victim Compensation Program (CVCP) was supported by substantial evidence. The district court granted the State’s motion for restitution in the amount of $2740.95. The defendant appealed. For the reasons expressed below, we vacate and remand the matter to the district court.

I. Factual and Procedural Background.

Eddie DeLong was convicted of sexual abuse in the third degree, a class "C" felony, while being a habitual offender, and supplying alcohol to a minor, an aggravated misdemeanor. Evidence offered at trial showed that DeLong provided alcohol to M.G., a minor. After M.G. consumed the alcohol and was lying on a couch, DeLong squeezed her breasts, rubbed her vagina, and pulled down her pants. M.G. at one point opened her eyes and looked at DeLong, who appeared surprised.

M.G. awoke around noon the next day, feeling sick. There was vomit on her left shoulder. Her vagina was sore, her underwear had blood on them, and her pants were on backward. M.G. did not immediately remember what had occurred, but later remembered the incident, told her mother about it, and DeLong was arrested. DeLong was convicted of both crimes after a jury trial and was sentenced by the court.

The district court set a restitution hearing. At the hearing on restitution, the State called Ruth Walker, the restitution subrogation coordinator with the Crime Victim Assistance Division in the State of Iowa Attorney General’s Office, to testify. The State, through Walker, introduced two exhibits. Exhibit 15 was entitled "Claim Payment Summary" and provided an itemized statement of expenses, organized by category and date, paid by the CVCP. Exhibit 16 was a compendium of what was labeled as "Medical & Mental Health Expense Verification Documents" to support the claim payment summary provided in exhibit 15. The total amount of restitution sought by the State was $2740.95.

Walker testified at the hearing about the process used by CVCP to determine whether to pay expenses. She testified that when CVCP receives an application, it requests billings and medical records from providers. According to Walker, when the information is received, a compensation specialist reviews the information and determines whether the CVCP should pay for the expenses. She told the court that if it is determined that the expense is crime related and CVCP can pay for it, then a payment is requested. Walker stated that the file then goes to another compensation specialist, who reviews it for quality control. If approved, Walker stated that the payment is then sent to the provider. Walker testified that this process was applied to all of the restitution sought by the State in its application in this case.

Aside from her general process testimony, Walker further testified that itemizations on the first two substantive pages of exhibit 15 showed that "[the CVCP] paid counseling and some medical expenses, which totaled $1,428.95." Walker further testified based on the itemizations on the third substantive page of exhibit 15 that "[the CVCP] also paid for the sexual assault exam that the victim had at Mercy Hospital in Sioux City, and that was $1,312."

Walker did not provide medical records to support the itemizations in exhibit 15. Walker explained that under Iowa Code section 22.7, she was required to keep such records confidential. But Walker explained that staff reviewed the medical records before including charges in exhibit 15.

Walker did not clearly explain the relationship between exhibits 15 and 16. She stated that in exhibit 16 she tried to put the documents in order of service. Walker testified that the bills in exhibit 16 should theoretically add up to the payments in exhibit 15.

Exhibit 16 contains a mix of documents, including five documents entitled "Crime Victim Compensation Program Medical Expense Verification Form." The verification form asks the provider whether the services rendered were a direct result of crime. The provider is then asked to itemize the charges, including specifically any amounts paid by the patient. The verification form is then signed by a representative of the provider, who certifies that the information "in this treatment plan is true and accurate" and that the signatory is "currently licensed and in good standing in the State in which [he or she] practice[s]."

The first verification form in exhibit 16 relates to services provided by Cherokee Regional Medical Center on July 17, 2016, and is dated February 22, 2017. The verification form indicates the amount paid by the patient was $30. The question on the verification form which asked whether the services rendered were a direct result of crime was left unanswered by the medical provider. A handwritten notation adjacent to the question said "Per Ruth, CVC should pay." The verification form was signed by an authorized signatory of the provider. A statement for M.G. from the provider follows the verification form indicating a patient payment of $30.

A second verification form in exhibit 16 was submitted by Floyd Valley Hospital Family Medicine Clinic for services rendered on August 16, 2016. The question on the verification form that asked whether the services were directly related to the crime was answered in the affirmative. The verification form states that the amount paid by the claimant was $30. It is signed by a representative of the provider. The next page following the verification form provides account information stating that the patient paid $30 for services on August 17, 2016.

A third verification form in exhibit 16 was submitted by Orange City Health System for services rendered September 12, 2016, and is dated April 24, 2017. The question on the verification form that asked whether services were directly related to the crime had N/A marked next to it. The amount paid by the client as indicated on the verification form is $80, with an unpaid balance of $70. It is not clear who owes the unpaid balance. The two pages following the verification form present billing detail for services on September 12 and indicate that the patient paid $80.

A fourth verification form in exhibit 16 was submitted by Family Solutions Services, Inc. dated May 5, 2017. The form was slightly different than other forms as it carried the title "Mental Health Expense Verification." This fourth verification form also does not state the services that were rendered, the date of the services, or whether the services were directly related to a crime. It indicates that the claimant paid $60 and that the provider is also "owed $92."

The next document following the May 5, 2017 verification form in exhibit 16 is entitled "Crime Victim Compensation Program Mental Health Treatment Plan" and is dated August 8, 2017. This document indicates that the presenting complaint was "symptoms of PTSD" and the diagnosis of record and brief description were "PTSD—symptoms related to sexual assault." A box is checked stating that the treatment was "a direct result of the crime on 5/30/2016." The date of the crime, however, was June 30, 2016. The document does not state who the patient is and is not signed by anyone. The next page in exhibit 16, however, is a September 15 account statement from Family Solutions indicating services on August 8, August 15, and September 25 for M.G., with a "projected patient balance" of $120.

The fifth verification form was submitted by Floyd Valley Hospital Family Medicine Clinic signed December 19, 2017. The document does not list a date for services rendered. The unspecified services are said to be a direct result of crime. The document is signed by an authorized signatory. The next two pages in exhibit 16 are from an account information report of the provider that indicates that the claimant paid $60 out of pocket for the services.

In addition to the above documents, exhibit 16 contains a number of orphan documents that are not tethered to any verification form. There is a billing statement from Floyd Valley Healthcare dated August 9, 2016, for services rendered on August 5; another billing statement from Floyd Valley Healthcare dated September 19, 2016, for services provided on September 15 along with an adding machine tape with various notations; a third billing statement from Floyd Valley Healthcare dated January 5, 2017, for services rendered on January 1, 2017, and an accompanying adding machine tape; an itemized invoice from Remsen Ambulance dated January 12, 2017, for services rendered on January 1, 2017. None of these documents provide any statement that the charges were related to the crime. Some, like the Remsen Ambulance invoice, do not indicate what portions were the responsibility of M.G.

On this record, the district court entered an order approving of the restitution claim in its entirety in the amount of $2740.95. The district court relied largely on the testimony of Walker regarding how the CVCP processes requests for payment of medical services. The district court noted that medical records are not subject to release under Iowa Code section 22.7, as incorporated into crime victim restitution through Iowa Code section 915.90. In light of the confidentiality provisions, the district court determined that the general process testimony offered by Walker, supplemented in a few places by her more specific testimony about a particular expense, was sufficient to support the restitution.

DeLong appealed. We transferred the case to the court of appeals. The court of appeals affirmed, noting that...