no restitution to Department of Corrections to compensate for indirect expenses for medical treatment of victim of attack
How later courts described this case
- no restitution to Department of Corrections to compensate for indirect expenses for medical treatment of victim of attack
- imposition of restitution is within sound discretion of the sentencing court and must be supported by the record
- imposition of restitution is left to trial court's discretion, but must be supported by the record
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SAYLOR, Judge,
concurring.
I join in the decision to vacate the order of restitution because I conclude, as does Judge Tamilia, that the sums *628 expended by the Department of Corrections for the victim’s medical care did not constitute “reimbursement [provided by a government agency] to the victim as a result of the defendant’s criminal conduct” within the meaning of the restitution statute as recently amended (effective July 3, 1995). Accordingly, such sums are not recoverable as restitution in a criminal proceeding.
Although not applicable to this case, the recently enacted Prison Medical Services Act (effective May 16, 1996), cited in the dissent, appears to provide that an inmate may be required' to pay a fee to the Department of Corrections for medical services provided because of injuries which he inflicts on a fellow inmate.