Peavy v. Cal. Victim Compensation etc. CA4/1

Filed 6/28/22 Peavy v. Cal. Victim Compensation etc. CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

GARY L. PEAVY, D079193

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2020-00028849- CU-WM-CTL) CALIFORNIA VICTIM COMPENSATION CLAIMS BOARD,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, John S. Meyer, Judge. Affirmed. Gary L. Peavy, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Danielle F. O’Bannon, Assistant Attorney General, Richard F. Wolfe and Tim J. Vanden Heuvel, Deputy Attorneys General for Defendant and Respondent.

Under California law a crime victim may seek compensation from the Victim Compensation Board (Board) for certain economic losses. (Gov.

Code,1 § 13950 et seq.) A lost income claim requires medical evidence to “verify” the disability is “a direct result” of the crime. (Cal. Code. Regs., tit. 2, § 649.32, subd. (g).) Judicial review of a final Board decision is by s petition for a writ of mandate filed in the superior court. (§ 13960, subd. (a).) In this case, Gary Peavy appeals from a judgment denying his petition for a writ of mandate challenging the Board’s denial of his lost income claim. We affirm because Peavy submitted no medical evidence to support a finding that his claimed disability was a direct result of any crime.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The Domestic Violence Incident On October 7, 2018, Peavy’s girlfriend, Diane N., caught him driving