statute. However, there are other compelling reasons to reimburse innocent victims of violent crimes. The worry that encompasses a victim while recovering from the injuries and without funds to pay his medical expenses, or to maintain his family is undoubtedly more harmful to his recovery than the pain that he suffers.

The traumatic impact upon the family of the victim who dies facing the future with uncertainty of not only how to pay the medical and/or funeral bill, but where they will turn to replace the support lost through death.

The State of Maryland, being one of the leaders in this field, reflects the awakening of the social consciousness of the people of the western world to the assisting of innocent victims of crime in somewhat the same manner that State mandated programs provide for illness, disability, old age and unemployment.

The victims are deserving of aid simply because they need the same. F.B.I. Director, J. Edgar Hoover made the need for aid to the victim known when he said: "We are faced today with one of the most disturbing trends that I have witnessed in my many years of law enforcement zealous pity for the criminal and an equivalent disregard for his victim." (Congressional Record June 24, 1965.)

an over

During the past year the Board has learned from police agencies that in many instances the victim is not interested in prosecution of his assailant because he has many more immediate and pressing problems. In addition, the victim without the benefits of this statute is left with nothing except his bills, the worry of his family, as well as the disruption of his household. However, since the innocent victim of crime in the State of Maryland may file a claim, it is hoped, and there has been some experience to indicate, that he would be more willing to cooperate with the law enforcement agencies knowing someone cares about him. In this respect the victim who was an unwilling and uncooperative witness now becomes a willing and cooperative witness.

It is the feeling of the Board that the assistance afforded the innocent victim of a crime is helping and aiding in the administration of justice.

XII. Inter-Agency Cooperation

Finally, the Board acknowledgs the cooperation of the State's Attorneys throughout the State in aiding in this program.

We also acknowledge the cooperation of each and every law enforcement agency and particularly to the State Police who have been of great assistance and willingly have made the information available.

The Board expresses its thanks to the staff which has been trained continually throughout the year to facilitate the handling of the paper work and the investigators in expediting the investigations.

XIII. Analysis and future needs

As noted in prior paragraphs, it is anticipated that the work load of this agency will greatly increase every year for the next few succeeding years. Consequently, budget needs will increase yearly. To substantiate this position, we need only refer to continual public awareness, crime statistics, and the experience of other States such as New York, Hawaii, et cetera. Moreover, the need for additional staff as well as at least one or more full time Commissioners will arise in the near future according to projections at this time. Administrative and procedural cases, we are still endeavoring to implement the most legal and best possible systems and manners of operation. To that extent, we have requested the Attorney General's office to act as adversary in all cases on which a full Board review is requested by a claimant in order to remove the possibility of cross examination by the Commissioners and in order to present to the public the fairest possible atmosphere at these hearings. Because of the new legalistic concept of our statute as well as the newness of our physical operation, unique and complex legal problems are raised at almost every full Board hearing. For these reasons, we must constantly in our service to the public and State, be on guard with respect to the legal and constitutional needs of all parties. As a result of our experiences, we also intend to submit various amendments to the law through the Secretary of our Department which we believe will further implement the philosophy and spirit of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act.

XIV. Acknowledgements

The Board lost the excellent services of Commissioner George Beall on June 1, 1970 when he was named United States Attorney for Maryland. He was one of the original Board members and the Board is greatly indebted to him for his substantial contribution to the over-all effectiveness of the Board.

It would be remiss for the Board to fail to acknowledge the work which the Executive Director and Secretary to the Board has carried on and acknowledge the increase in the duties of his offices, all of which have been handled exceedingly well.

SUMMARY OF CLAIMS

July 1, 1969 to July 1, 1970

1-P-69 *

Claimant, male, 53, was stabbed in the chest while attempting to break up a fight in a bar in Baltimore. Assailant was tried and found guilty and givẹn six years. Serious financial hardship determined. Claimant awarded $141.70 for unreimbursed medical expenses and $1,590.75 for unreimbursed lost time, 21 weeks at $75.75 per week, for a total award of $1,732.45.

3-P-69

Claimant, 61, had lye thrown in his face while he was operating his grocery store in Baltimore. Claimant earns approximately $600 per month and has assets of $12,000. Claimant lost one week from work and has $150.00 in unreimbursed medical expenses. Section 12(f) of the statute provides that if a claimant will not suffer serious financial hardship, as a result of his loss of earnings and out-of-pocket medical expenses, an award shall be denied. In view of the claimant's assets and income, serious financia! hardship was not indicated, and the claim is disallowed.

5-D-69 *

Claimant, 30, is the widow of a man who was shot to death in December 1968 in Prince George's County. Assailant was tried, found guilty and given 30 years. Claimant had approximately $32,000 in assets when the Board originally considered the claim. The claim was denied because claimant did not show that she had a serious financial hardship. Claimant appealed to the full Board. Claimant was able to establish that she was unemployed and had three children of tender age living at home with her. She also established to the Board's satisfaction that she had a serious kidney disease that necessitated extensive hospitalization and renal treatments. A housekeeper was required not only when she was hospitalized but at other times also. She had also expended the major portion of her assets on her medical bills and child care payments.

Decision on review by full Board reversed. The Board found that there had been a change in the claimant's financial condition since the original hearing and that the claimant had, as of January 1, 1970, a serious financial hardship as required by section 12(f) of Article 26A of the Maryland Annotated Code. Award: $838.40 for four monthly awards at $209.60 per month calculated to April 30, 1970 and beginning May 30, 1970, $209.60 per month. However, in no event may the total of all payments to the claimant exceed the sum of $27,500. The Board reserves the right to reopen and reinvestigate this claim and if warranted from the facts then existing to issue a new order based upon a change in the claimant's financial condition.

6-D-69

Claimant, 62, is the widow of the former Sheriff of Wicomico County, who was shot and killed while trying to prevent a prisoner from escaping

from jail. The Board found that the claimant's husband was the innocent victim of a crime. It does not find, however, in view of the claimant's assets of over $50,000 that the claimant was presently suffering a serious financial hardship as required by Section 12(f) of Artcile 26A of the Maryland Annotated Code. The claim was, therefore, denied. The Board reserves the right to reopen and reinvestigate this claim and if warranted from the facts then existing, to issue a new order based upon a change in the claimant's financial condition.

7-D-69 *

Claimant, 54, is the widow of a victim who was killed in the process of an armed robbery at his place of business in Baltimore. The only income the victim's widow has is Social Security of $107.40 per month as contrasted with living expenses of $330 per month. Serious financial hardship was determined by the Board. Award: $284 for unreimbursed funeral expenses, plus $2,516.80 for 13 monthly awards @$193.60 per month, calculated to December 31, 1969, making a total of $2,800.80 and beginning January 1, 1970, $193.60 per month. However, in no event may the total of all payments made to claimant exceed the sum of $27,500. The Board reserves the right to reopen and reinvestigate this claim and if warranted from the facts then existing to issue a new order based upon a change in the claimant's financial condition.

8-P-69 *

Claimant, male, 60, and his wife (#9-P-69), were assaulted by two assailants during a hold-up of their grocery store in Baltimore. Assailants were apprenhended. Claimant sustained lacerations to his scalp and nose and multiple facial contusions and a broken rib with displacement. The bulk of claimant's medical expenses were reimbursed by insurance with the exception of $125. We find claimant to be the innocent victim of a crime and serious financial hardship is determined. Award: $125 for unreimbursed expenses plus $919.80 for lost time, totalling $1,044.80. (Cross index #9-6-69)

9-P-69 *

Claimant, female, age 53, and her husband were pistol whipped by two assailants during the hold-up of their grocery store in Baltimore, Maryland. Assailants were apprehended. Claimant sustained numerous lacerations to her face and head in addition to a fractured rib. Claimant's medical bills were reimbursed by insurance. Claimant and her husband did not reopen their business. We find claimant to be the innocent victim of a crime and serious financial hardship is determined. Award: $1,984.00 for lost time.

15-P-69 *

Claimant, female, 42, was assaulted on a public street in Baltimore by two unknown assailants who threw her to the ground and stole her purse. Claimant suffered a fracture of the left orbital bone. Claimant was paid her full salary by employer. No loss of wages. Serious financial hardship is determined. Award: $219.50 for unreimbursed medical expenses.

20-P-69 *

Claimant, male, 18, was struck in the face with a stick by an assailant in Baltimore. Claimant lost his left eye as a result of the assault. As to the unreimbursed medical bills and lost earnings, claimant lost 39 weeks from work for a total of $2,598.50. He returned to work at the same rate of pay. Serious financial hardship determined. Claimant is awarded $1,246.76 for unreimbursed medical expenses and $1,351.74 for loss of earnings.

22-P-69

Claimant, male, 63, was injured by two unknown assailants on December 5, 1968 on a public street in Baltimore, Maryland. There was, however, no showing in the records before us that the claimant has suffered a serious financial hardship as required by Section 12(f) of the statute. The major portion of the claimant's medical bills were reimbursed to him by insurance. The claimant's remaining medical bills and out-of-pocket losses were minimal. The claim was denied. Claimant appealed to the full Board.

Claimant's counsel at the full Board hearing contended that reimbursed medical bills should be paid by the Board to claimant because not to do so would be to penalize the prudent. Section 12(d) of the statute states in part that any award made by the Board shall be reduced by the amount of any payments received as a result of the injury from any public or private source, including Workmen's Compensation. Decision was confirmed by the full Board.

23-D-69

Claimant, 43, was a former paramour of a man who was found dead in a public park in Baltimore. He had been shot approximately seven times in various parts of his body. Our investigation revealed that the deceased and the claimant were not living together at the time of the deceased's death. The deceased had been, for approximately seven years, a dealer in narcotics. Three brown packages containing marijuana were found on his body and a subsequent search of his home revealed a large amount of marijuana. The Board concluded that the deceased was not "an innocent victim of a crime". Assuming without deciding that the deceased was an innocent victim of a crime, no dependency was established by the claimant. The claim was denied.

25-P-69

Claimant, male, age 57, owned and operated a clothing store in Baltimore, Maryland. On January 6, 1969, he was bound, gagged and robbed by two unknown assailants in his store. Several days after the robbery he suffered a ruptured peptic ulcer. The bulk of his hospital bills were paid by insurance and he received $50 a week in disability benefits. The Board found that the claimant was in fact a victim of a criminal act but that there was no causal connection between the injury and the criminal act. It further found that the claimant did not have a serious financial hardship as required by Section 12(f) of the statute and denied the claim.