A vastly underused source of funds is available for crime victims and their families, perhaps at the time when it is needed most. Many states have a Crime Victims Compensation Fund.
The Pennsylvania fund may cover medical expenses, loss of earnings, loss of support, funeral expenses, money stolen or defrauded from individuals on a fixed income, such as Social Security or pension, counseling expenses, relocation expenses, childcare/home health care expenses and crime-scene clean up. The program does not cover pain and suffering or stolen or damaged property, except replacement of stolen or damaged medical devices.
The claim must be filed within two years of the date of the crime. A longer period applies if the victim is a child. In certain circumstances, family members of the crime victim may be eligible for compensation.
The crime must be reported to the proper authorities within three days. You must cooperate with law enforcement authorities investigating the crime, the courts and the Victims Compensation Assistance Program in processing the claim.
The Crime Victims Compensation fund is regarded as a payer of last resort. Payment will be reduced by the amount of any other source, including, but not limited to: health or life insurance, awards for civil lawsuits or insurance, Medical Assistance, Medicare, disability insurance, Workers’ Compensation, or Social Security.
Most claims are processed within three months, but can take longer if the claim is complex.
The Pennsylvania Crime Victims Compensation Act became law in 1976. This fund consists of fines and penalties assessed against persons convicted of crimes. No general tax revenues of the state are used.
Showing posts with label biohazard cleaning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label biohazard cleaning. Show all posts
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Appeals panel agrees that failure to read document doesn't null contract
KEITH ARNOLD, Daily Reporter Staff Writer
A Franklin County appellate panel was unable to conclude that the Franklin County Municipal Court's determination in a breach of contract suit between a specialty home-cleaning service and the next of kin of a Grove City man who died in his home was against the manifest weight of the evidence in a recent decision.
"Upon our review of the record, we find no error in the trial court's determination that an enforceable contract existed between the parties," 10th District Court of Appeals Judge Patrick McGrath wrote for the 3-0 court.
The appellate court's holding overruled Nancy Buffington's claim that the trial court was mistaken to find that the contract between her and the cleaning service was enforceable and, therefore, obligated the woman to utilize the company's services per the agreed terms.
Buffington's father died in his home on Nov. 10, 2005, case summary provided. The man's body was discovered one-and-a-half to two days after his death. Approximately one week later, the personal belongings were removed from the home and it was listed for sale.
On Jan. 14, 2006, Buffington contracted for the services of Aftermath Inc., which provides biological remediation and cleanup services. According to the contract, the woman agreed to pay for cleanup services concerning an unattended death in the Grove City home.
Aftermath's complaint alleged that after the firm rendered services, appellant refused to pay the amount due under the contract. After a trial to the bench, the trial court concluded that a valid written contract existed between the parties and that the company was entitled to payment for the services rendered in accordance with the contract. The court awarded damages in the amount of $6,189.36 to Aftermath.
The panel noted Buffington signed both a site cleanup agreement and a fee agreement for non-insurance-related jobs. Additionally, the court rejected the woman's claim there existed no evidence that she understood or agreed to biological remediation of her father's home.
"... As noted by the trial court, appellant's stated failure to read the documents prior to signing them is of no consequence as it is well-established that the failure to read the terms of a contract is not a valid defense to enforcement of the contract," as in Haller v. Borror Corp. (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 10, 14.
"Further, appellant's argument that she was 'mistaken' equally fails because 'relief for a unilateral mistake of material fact will not be provided where such mistake is the result of the negligence of the party seeking relief,'" as in Hikmet v. Turkoglu, 10th Dist. No. 08AP-1021, 2009-Ohio-6477, and Marshall v. Beach (2001), 143 Ohio App.3d 432, 437.
Fellow 10th District Judge Susan Brown and John Connor joined McGrath to form the majority.
The case is cited as Aftermath Inc. v. Buffington, 2010-Ohio-19.
A Franklin County appellate panel was unable to conclude that the Franklin County Municipal Court's determination in a breach of contract suit between a specialty home-cleaning service and the next of kin of a Grove City man who died in his home was against the manifest weight of the evidence in a recent decision.
"Upon our review of the record, we find no error in the trial court's determination that an enforceable contract existed between the parties," 10th District Court of Appeals Judge Patrick McGrath wrote for the 3-0 court.
The appellate court's holding overruled Nancy Buffington's claim that the trial court was mistaken to find that the contract between her and the cleaning service was enforceable and, therefore, obligated the woman to utilize the company's services per the agreed terms.
Buffington's father died in his home on Nov. 10, 2005, case summary provided. The man's body was discovered one-and-a-half to two days after his death. Approximately one week later, the personal belongings were removed from the home and it was listed for sale.
On Jan. 14, 2006, Buffington contracted for the services of Aftermath Inc., which provides biological remediation and cleanup services. According to the contract, the woman agreed to pay for cleanup services concerning an unattended death in the Grove City home.
Aftermath's complaint alleged that after the firm rendered services, appellant refused to pay the amount due under the contract. After a trial to the bench, the trial court concluded that a valid written contract existed between the parties and that the company was entitled to payment for the services rendered in accordance with the contract. The court awarded damages in the amount of $6,189.36 to Aftermath.
The panel noted Buffington signed both a site cleanup agreement and a fee agreement for non-insurance-related jobs. Additionally, the court rejected the woman's claim there existed no evidence that she understood or agreed to biological remediation of her father's home.
"... As noted by the trial court, appellant's stated failure to read the documents prior to signing them is of no consequence as it is well-established that the failure to read the terms of a contract is not a valid defense to enforcement of the contract," as in Haller v. Borror Corp. (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 10, 14.
"Further, appellant's argument that she was 'mistaken' equally fails because 'relief for a unilateral mistake of material fact will not be provided where such mistake is the result of the negligence of the party seeking relief,'" as in Hikmet v. Turkoglu, 10th Dist. No. 08AP-1021, 2009-Ohio-6477, and Marshall v. Beach (2001), 143 Ohio App.3d 432, 437.
Fellow 10th District Judge Susan Brown and John Connor joined McGrath to form the majority.
The case is cited as Aftermath Inc. v. Buffington, 2010-Ohio-19.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
