Com. v. Placek, J.
Com. v. Placek, J. No. 729 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 1, 2017Background
- On Sept. 4, 2015 Placek shoved victim Kim Schacher, knocked his phone away, and injured his arm; Schacher sought treatment at MedExpress the same day (X‑rays, contusion, medication).
- Placek was tried on summary appeal and convicted of harassment under 18 Pa.C.S. § 2709(a)(1).
- At sentencing (Apr. 21, 2016) the court imposed a $200 fine and $233.91 in medical restitution based solely on a Sept. 11, 2015 Explanation of Benefits (EOB) from Anthem Blue Cross.
- The EOB listed $233.91 as “It is your responsibility to pay,” but explicitly stated “THIS IS NOT A BILL” and showed insurer payment responsibilities.
- The Commonwealth introduced the MedExpress treatment record and the EOB but presented no provider invoice, receipt, canceled check, or testimony establishing that Schacher was billed or actually paid $233.91.
- Placek appealed, arguing the EOB alone was insufficient to prove out‑of‑pocket medical expenses and therefore restitution was unsupported by the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the EOB alone supports a $233.91 restitution award | Commonwealth: EOB shows “It is your responsibility to pay $233.91,” establishing victim’s obligation and amount | Placek: EOB is not a bill, is speculative about insurer/provider payments, and does not prove out‑of‑pocket loss | Court: EOB insufficient; restitution vacated because record lacks competent evidence of actual out‑of‑pocket medical expense |
| Burden of proof for restitution amount | Commonwealth must prove entitlement and amount | Placek: Commonwealth failed to meet its burden by offering only the EOB | Court: Commonwealth bears burden and did not satisfy it here |
| Whether restitution may be speculative/excessive | Commonwealth relied on EOB as basis for amount | Placek argued restitution must not be speculative and must be supported by record | Court: Restitution cannot be speculative or exceed victim’s loss; award vacated absent proof |
| Requirement of due diligence in ascertaining restitution before sentencing | Commonwealth argued EOB sufficed without further proof | Placek argued Commonwealth failed to exercise due diligence and produce invoices/receipts | Court: Cited statute and precedent requiring due diligence; Commonwealth did not comply |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Atanasio, 997 A.2d 1181 (Pa. Super. 2010) (Commonwealth bears burden to prove entitlement to restitution)
- Commonwealth v. Dohner, 725 A.2d 822 (Pa. Super. 1999) (restitution limited to losses directly resulting from criminal conduct and supported by record)
- Commonwealth v. Pleger, 934 A.2d 715 (Pa. Super. 2007) (restitution must not exceed victim’s losses and record must support amount)
- Commonwealth v. Balisteri, 478 A.2d 5 (Pa. Super. 1984) (restitution awards must not be speculative or excessive)
- Commonwealth v. Ortiz, 854 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. 2004) (en banc) (Commonwealth must exercise due diligence to ascertain restitution amount before sentencing)