DOC recommends denial of this claim. DOC contends that it had authority under common law to deduct restitution from inmate funds long before the enactment of Act 355, therefore the deductions were not illegal. The Court of Appeals clearly stated that it could neither order DOC to return money to Stephens, nor direct the circuit court to do so, DOC notes that the circuit court denied Stephens' requests for return of the money on the grounds that the court could not order DOC to refund money in response a writ of certiorari. DOC believes payment of this claim would result in an unjust enrichment of Stephens, who has never denied that he owed the money. DOC contends that, because the money has already been disbursed to the victims, Stephens enjoys the benefit of being relieved of this debt. DOC contends that if this claim is granted, there is no mechanism for the State to recoup the money from Stephens after he is released.
The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employees and this claim is neither one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
7. Antoine B. Lee of Winnebago, Wisconsin claims $1,480.48 for refund of restitution money overpaid for case no. 05CF6532. Lee states that his attorney paid the ordered restitution directly to the victims on Lee's behalf. Lee alleges DOC was aware that this debt had been satisfied because his attorney made the payments in the presence of DOC staff. In 2016, DOC switched to a new inmate account system, which began deducting restitution money for this case from Lee's account. Lee contends that the new accounting system incorrectly "rebooted" the restitution debt for this case. Lee filed an inmate complaint and was told to contact his DOC agent, who would attempt to recoup the overpayment from the victims. Lee has contacted the DOC agent multiple times but still has not been reimbursed. Lee believes that DOC is attempting to shift responsibility to others, despite the State's acknowledgement that an overpayment was made.
DOC recommends denial of this claim. DOC points to the fact that it deducted the funds from Lee's account pursuant to a valid court order and disbursed the money to the victims as instructed. DOC contends that it was unaware that Lee's attorney also sent restitution payments directly to the victims, contrary to the Judgement of Conviction. In November 2017, the court notified DOC that Lee's restitution obligations for this case were satisfied, and DOC stopped the deductions. The payments disbursed by DOC combined with the payments made by Lee's attorney resulted in an overpayment of restitution to the victims. A Division of Community Corrections agent sent a letter to the victims requesting return of the overpayment but received no response. DOC advised Lee to work with his attorney to recoup the overpaid amount. DOC believes the overpayment error was caused by Lee's attorney; therefore, DOC should not be held responsible for payment of this claim.
The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employees and this claim is neither one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
8. Kevin Burkes of Waupun, Wisconsin claims $137.15 for value of tablet, including songs and games stored on the tablet, allegedly damaged by DOC staff. Burkes indicates he was transferred from CCI to WCI on April 26, 2022. On May 2, 2022, Burkes received his property, but his tablet was missing. DOC staff told him the tablet was designated as contraband upon receipt at WCI because the screen was damaged. Burkes filed an inmate complaint regarding the matter alleging that the tablet was undamaged prior to his transfer. His complaint was affirmed on appeal, and DOC reimbursed Burkes for the depreciated value of the tablet ($110). Burkes disputes DOC's assertion that has not exhausted his administrative remedies regarding the songs and games stored on his tablet. He notes that filing a complaint about the tablet includes anything on the tablet, and that listing the contents separately would have result in dismissal and/ or rejection of the complaint for including multiple issues. Burkes believes that because DOC admitted that the damage occurred while the tablet was under staff control, he should receive the full purchase price of the tablet, plus the cost of the songs and games.
DOC recommends denial of this claim. DOC reimbursed Burkes $110, the depreciated value of the tablet, consistent with DOC policy and believes no further remedy is appropriate in this matter. DOC notes that Burkes did not mention the related songs and games stored on the tablet at the time of his inmate complaint and, therefore, has not exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to those items. DOC also notes that Burkes' claim amount seems to be consistent with the full purchase price of the tablet, not accounting for the $110 already reimbursed. Burkes alleges to have paid $137.15 with tax for the tablet, 42 songs at $2 each ($84), 4 games at $3 ($12), and 2 games at $1 ($2), which totals $235.15. $235.15 minus $110 (already reimbursed) $125.15.
The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employees and this claim is neither one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
The Board concludes:
That the following identified claimants are denied:
Mercy Health Systems and MercyCare Insurance Co.
Jason Edmonson
Frederick A. Morris (2 claims)
Mark A. Stephens
Antoine B. Lee
Kevin Burkes
Dated at Madison, Wisconsin this 3rd day of November, 2022.
COREY FINKELMEYER
Chair, Representative of the Attorney General
ANNE L. HANSON
Secretary, Representative of the Secretary of Administration
MARY FELZKOWSKI
Senate Finance Committee
TERRY KATSMA
Assembly Finance Committee
_____________
State of Wisconsin
Wisconsin Ethics Commission
November 15, 2022
The Honorable, the Senate:
Pursuant to Wis. Stats. §13.685 (7), we are providing the enclosed information. Please visit the Wisconsin Ethics Commission’s Eye on Lobbying website, https://lobbying.wi.gov, for more detailed information about lobbyists, lobbying principals (organizations), and state agency liaisons. Lee, Misha American Family Insurance Group
Sincerely,
DANIEL A. CARLTON, JR.
Administrator
