Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Victim Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Victim compensation office seeks to limit "intervener" claims to physical injury; would name first responders
Summary
Jennifer Pullman of the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services told the Judiciary committee S.109 should limit eligibility for "intervener" compensation to those who suffer physical injury and explicitly include protected professionals such as EMTs and firefighters; the fund faces a projected $562,000 shortfall.
On April 3 before the Judiciary committee, Jennifer Pullman, executive director of the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services, urged changes to the victim compensation statute in S.109 to narrow eligibility for "intervener" claims and to make explicit exceptions for first responders.
Pullman explained the phrase "intervener" in the statute is broad and, combined with a separate provision allowing emotional injury as a compensable "injury," has allowed some people who called 911 or witnessed events to file claims. "When you think about a $10,000 claim ... that could potentially really bankrupt our fund," Pullman said, noting the fund is already facing a projected deficit of $562,000.
To address that trend, Pullman proposed limiting regular interveners to claims for physical injury while preserving coverage for first responders by replacing the word "police" in the statute with a cross‑reference to "protected professional," which would capture EMTs, health care professionals, firefighters and related emergency personnel. She said the center posted two documents to the committee page that show the full statute context and an additional amendment.
Pullman said the board that adjudicates claims retains discretion to hear cases that do not fit the statutory standard; several committee members pressed for confirmation that unusual or severe emotional harm could still be considered. "There always is that discretion," Pullman said, noting such exceptional cases are referred to the board.
Committee members asked about definitions referenced in the proposal; Pullman cited the statute defining "protected person" in 13 DSA 10 28 and emergency medical personnel defined in 24 DSA 26 51. The committee chair said the proposal may be considered as amendments next week and that the House Corrections and Institutions committee may also consider related language.
No vote occurred during the hearing; the testimony was presented for the committee's consideration as it prepares amendments.
