ILNews

Judges reduce restitution award stemming from correctional officer attack

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A partial permanent impairment settlement cannot be considered by a trial court when imposing restitution, the Indiana Court of Appeals held Tuesday.

In Ruben Gonzalez v. State of Indiana, 52A02-1306-CR-526, Ruben Gonzalez appealed the $41,200 in restitution he was ordered to pay to JWF Specialty Company, the third-party administrator for the state’s workers’ compensation benefits. Gonzalez, while incarcerated at the Miami Correctional Facility, severely beat correctional officer Rodney Gahl with a padlock contained in a sock. The attack caused severe life-threatening injuries, resulting in extensive treatment and therapy and substantial permanent impairments.

Gonzalez was convicted of Class A felony attempted murder and Class B felony aggravated battery. The trial court ordered he pay JWF more than $257,000 in restitution. He only appealed the portion of the restitution order related to the permanent partial impairment settlement paid to Gahl.

The parties agree that JWF can recoup the restitution amounts JWF paid for Gahl’s medical treatment and lost wages, which were incurred prior to the sentencing hearing.

“The medical and lost-wages costs assumed by JWF are specific costs that a trial court shall consider when imposing restitution. The same cannot be said for the PPI settlement,” Judge Ezra Friedlander wrote, citing I.C. 35-50-5-3(a)(2) and (4).

“A PPI payment is compensation for an injured employee’s permanent loss of physical function(s) rather than for an inability to work. Gahl, himself, could not have sought restitution at the criminal proceeding for loss of physical function, as it does not encompass already-incurred lost wages or medical expense. Accordingly, JWF cannot recover the PPI payment via its status as a surrogate victim.”

The judges remand for the trial court to reduce the restitution award by $41,200. They also ordered the trial court to vacate the aggravated battery conviction because of a double jeopardy violation.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT