{
  "id": 2719690,
  "name": "In Re Application of Hamit Jusufi",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re Jusufi",
  "decision_date": "1976-09-08",
  "docket_number": "No. 74-CV-12",
  "first_page": "631",
  "last_page": "634",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "31 Ill. Ct. Cl. 631"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
    "id": 8793,
    "name": "Illinois Court of Claims"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 350,
    "char_count": 4982,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.855,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.505882454708161e-08,
      "percentile": 0.522208437634781
    },
    "sha256": "c01311ebd9708a5c4e84abb9d0457bb693d58ded7aa9627ab46f75813182df2a",
    "simhash": "1:e209a101e3ac257c",
    "word_count": 849
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:56:35.411419+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "In Re Application of Hamit Jusufi."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThis claim arises out of an alleged crime that took place on November 5, 1973, at 212 S. LaSalle Street, Aurora. The Claimant seeks compensation under the provisions of the Crime Victims Compensation Act, (Ill. Rev.Stat., 1973, Chapter 70, Section 71, et seq.) (hereafter referred to as the \"Act\u201d).\nThe issues in this case are whether (1) the assault on the Claimant was provoked by him, (2) the injuries received were the proximate result of the criminal assault, and (3) whether the Claimant cooperated fully with the law enforcement officials in the apprehension and prosecution of the assailant.\nThe facts were that on the evening of November 5, 1973, the Claimant met two men and two women who were acquaintances of his at a restaurant and was invited to the apartment of one of the men. The entire group went to this person\u2019s apartment. After having some coffee and conversation, the Claimant asked to go home. The group then went to Claimant\u2019s automobile and the Claimant was driven home by one of the acquaintances.\nOn the way to the Claimant\u2019s home, the automobile occupied by the parties struck a parked car and received minor property damage. No one was injured.\nThe Claimant was driven home, arriving about 10 p.m. The two men and two women left and the Claimant went to bed and fell asleep.\nAbout one hour later, the Claimant was awakened from his sleep by repeated knocks on the door. Upon opening the door he saw the people with whom he had spent the early part of the evening. One man had a chain in his hand with which he struck the Claimant on the head. The Claimant fell to the floor and was severely beaten into unconsciousness.\nThe police were called by the owner of the building who heard the noise and the Claimant was taken to a hospital where he stayed overnight.\nThe Claimant was unable to work for the next three days because of pain in his right side and blood in his urine. On the fourth day, he worked a few hours but after arriving home he collapsed and was taken to the hospital. His condition was diagnosed as a ruptured kidney and an operation was performed removing the kidney.\nAs to the first issue, that of possible provocation, there was no evidence of such provocation. There were, however, various contradictory statements in police and hospital records. However, this Court is of the opinion that any contradictory statements were the result of the Claimant\u2019s obvious difficulty with the English language. Indeed, his court testimony, even with an interpreter, was difficult to follow.\nThere being no actual evidence of provocation, this Court finds that the assault on the Claimant was unprovoked.\nAs to the second issue, that of proximate cause, the evidence was clear. The Claimant\u2019s physician testified that it was her opinion that the removal of the kidney was the proximate result of the beating described. There was no evidence that the automobile accident resulted in any injury whatsoever.\nAs to the third issue, the facts were that the Claimant talked to the police after he recovered his senses in the hospital but did not sign a complaint. He did however sign a complaint two days later and appeared at the trial of the criminal complaint and the assailants were thereby convicted of disorderly conduct.\nThe Court therefore finds that the Claimant cooperated fully with the law enforcement officials.\nThe Court further finds that the Claimant was a victim of a violent crime as defined in Section 2(c) of the Act, to wit: \"Aggravated Battery\u201d, (Ill.Rev.Stat., 1975, Chapter 38, Section 12-4).\nThe Court further finds that the Claimant and his assailants were not related nor did they share the same household.\nThe Claimant incurred medical and hospital expenses in the amount of $3,347.70.\nThe Claimant worked for the Aurora County Club as a kitchen aid. He earned $2.75 per hour for a 48 hour week. He missed one month of work full time and missed three hours per day for two additional weeks.\nSection 4 of the Act provides:\nLoss of earnings . . . shall be determined on the basis of the victim\u2019s average monthly earnings for the six months immediately preceding the date of the injury or on $500.00 per month, whichever is less. . . .\nIn this case only $500.00 per month may be considered as lost earnings. By this method the victim lost $666.00 in earnings.\nThe total amount of his loss is therefore $4,013.70.\nIn determining the amount of compensation to which an applicant is entitled, the Court must first deduct $200.00 as provided in Section 7 of the Act.\nAfter deducting the statutory deduction of $200.00 the compensation due to the claimant is computed at $3,813.70.\nIt Is Hereby Ordered that the sum of $3,813.70 be awarded to the Claimant, Hamit Jusufi, an innocent victim of a violent crime.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Martin Cassell, Attorney for Claimant.",
      "William J. Scott, Attorney General of Illinois; Peggy Bastas, Assistant Attorney General."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 74-CV-12\nIn Re Application of Hamit Jusufi.\nOpinion filed September 8, 1976.\nMartin Cassell, Attorney for Claimant.\nWilliam J. Scott, Attorney General of Illinois; Peggy Bastas, Assistant Attorney General."
  },
  "file_name": "0631-01",
  "first_page_order": 681,
  "last_page_order": 684
}