State Of Washington v. Matthew Travis Gonce, 74672-3

On Dec. 4, 2014 Matthew Gonce committed racially motivated harassment and assaults at University of Washington Medical Center; victims included Carol Harris (harassment) and Rebekah Strong (assault).
Harris and Strong suffered emotional distress, sought treatment and counseling, and missed work; both filed L&I claims. L&I paid medical/counseling and lost-wage benefits to each.
Gonce pleaded guilty to felony harassment and fourth-degree assaults and agreed in the plea to pay restitution "in full." The judgment reserved the restitution amount for a later hearing.
At the restitution hearing L&I sought $10,297.83 (medical, counseling, and lost wages). Gonce did not challenge medical/counseling restitution but objected to restitution for lost wages, arguing RCW 9.94A.753(3) allows lost-wage restitution only for physical injuries, not emotional distress.
The trial court awarded restitution to L&I for documented lost wages and medical/counseling expenses; Gonce appealed the lost-wage awards.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether RCW 9.94A.753(3) authorizes restitution for lost wages caused by emotional-distress (nonphysical) injury	State: statute permits restitution for "lost wages resulting from injury," which includes emotional-distress injuries when losses are ascertainable	Gonce: "injury" in the statute should be read to mean "physical injury"; legislature excluded mental anguish and pain and suffering, so lost wages should be limited to physical injuries	Court: Affirmed — "injury" is not limited to physical harm; the 1982 deletion of "physical" broadened the statute and easily ascertainable lost wages from emotional injury are recoverable; intangible damages remain excluded

State v. Gonzalez, 168 Wn.2d 256 (2010) (statutory interpretation standards and plain-meaning review)
State v. Deskins, 180 Wn.2d 68 (2014) (restitution authority is statutory)
State v. Tobin, 161 Wn.2d 517 (2007) (purpose of restitution and avoiding overly technical constructions)
State v. Davison, 116 Wn.2d 917 (1991) (legislature intended broad restitution powers)
State v. Hiett, 154 Wn.2d 560 (2005) (restitution to victims is to be widely available)
State v. Enstone, 137 Wn.2d 675 (1999) (causal connection required between crime and loss)
State v. Griffith, 164 Wn.2d 960 (2008) (but-for causation for restitution)
Guillen v. Pierce County, 144 Wn.2d 696 (2001) (amendment of statutory wording indicates changed legislative intent)