SAN FRANCISCO, CA – Superior Court Judge Brendan J. Conroy imposed restitution on an accused here last Friday in San Francisco County Superior Court, despite Deputy Public Defender Nuha Absama’s insistence there was insufficient evidence of a nexus between emotional distress and the victim’s inability to work.
No details were provided in court of the “incident” in question, although the victim claimed an incident between him and the accused caused him emotional distress, hindering his ability to work.
And, through the California Victim Compensation Board (VCB), an agency that distributes restitutions, Deputy District Attorney Michael Hartmann argued for the restitution for the victim for six months of income loss and the necessary therapy services to accompany his distress.
The accused faced restitution for the victim’s hours of missed work and his mental health treatments.
Under the presumption that the victim sought restitution for physical injuries, Deputy Public Defender Absama maintained the victim’s inability to work had no correlation to the injuries caused by the incident, stressing the lack of tangible evidence.
According to DPD Absama, there was no doctor’s note or medical reason validating the time off from work due to injuries sustained in the attack.
Upon the court’s reevaluation of the VCB, the court clarified the victim suffered emotional injuries, not physical. Still, DPD Absama stood by her argument, stressing that no doctor validated those emotional injuries as a reason to miss work.
Because of his significant time off, DPD Absama noted the victim was terminated from his job.
DDA Hartmann emphasized the VCB clearly outlined the emotional distress from the incident was cause for the victim to miss work.
The judge requested more information, noting the redacted VCB was not providing enough information for him to make a decision.
The DDA cited Penal Code section 1202.4 (f)(4)(C), stating that any additional information should only be released after the judge reviewed that information in camera.
DPD Absama said she was not against the victim having access to therapy. However, she stressed the matter of the victim’s emotional distress was not backed by valid justification for him to miss work.
DDA Hartmann noted again the VCB board’s thorough analysis of the necessary documents made them “inherently reliable,” adding the VCB states work was missed because of the incident, arguing VCB itself was sufficient evidence for restitution.
DDA Hartmann cited that Penal Code sections 1202.4 (f)(4)(A), 1202.4 (f)(4)(B), and 1202.4 (f)(4)(C) in determining all restitution funds should be reviewed by the board through careful analysis of relevant documents to determine what compensation fits the injuries of the crime.
Hartmann reminded the court that should there be a request for additional information, the judge must comply first with an in camera review.
DPD Absama still stressed there was no substantial evidence or medical record suggesting a nexus between the victim’s emotional distress and the victim’s ability to work, arguing the victim could work and seek therapy simultaneously.
The judge imposed the restitution.
