ALBERT LEE v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS (2001)

OPINION

Petitioner seeks rehearing or reconsideration of his claim for lost property which was denied based upon failure to prove the value of the subject property by order of Court on September 11, 2001.

Petitioner seeks to introduce three Exhibits purporting to support his claim which arose on April 27, 1995. Claimant's Complaint was filed August 27, 1996 and hearing was held May 4, 2000. The Exhibits presented by Petitioner are briefly described as follows:

Ex. A. Purports to be an Affidavit by Claimant's mother which was notarized May 24, 2000.

Ex. B. An unsigned letter dated September 6, 1999 purportedly from Mrs. Lee to unknown person(s) requesting that Claimant be transferred to Stateville or an institution near Chicago as she is unable to travel due to illness.

Ex. C. An undated note from Dr. Mark Yoder, M.D. stating Claimant would have difficulty traveling due to unspecified medical conditions. Presumably, Ex. C was submitted with Ex. B for Claimant's request for transfer.

The proposed Exhibits were not offered at hearing nor submitted during the period preceding our Order denying the Claim upon receipt of the Commissioner's Recommendation on July 20, 2001, more than a year later. While the Affidavit supports Petitioner's testimony at hearing, its authenticity is questionable and appears to assert a claim by Mrs. Lee who purchased the books for Petitioner. The Court also notes that Petitioner and his mother assert loss of income to their family resulting from Respondent's negligence. There is no evidence to support claims for lost income and the Complaint seeks only return or replacement of the lost books. We shall not consider claims for lost income.

We have carefully reviewed Petitioner's request and the record herein. The Exhibits (A-C) attached to the Petition still fail to establish the value of the lost brooks beyond a broad statement that each volume was purchased by mail for $39.95 to $49.95. Petitioner's allegation (at paragraph #3, pg. 1, of his Petition) that he was unaware of the requirement for proof of damages is not persuasive. Claimant bears the burden of proving each element of a cause of action including damages in virtually any legal venue or tribunal in the U.S. Petitioner has had nearly six years to obtain proof of the value of the titles which are listed in his Complaint and Respondent's submission along with the authors names (see Memo of August 2, 1995 from Office of Inmate Issues). Reasonable diligence would have been demonstrated in this fact scenario by showing evidence of written requests to the authors or publishers for information prior to hearing.

We hereby deny the Petition for Rehearing and affirm denial of this claim.

JANN, J.