In re Davis

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as In re Davis, 2003-Ohio-7083.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO VICTIMS OF CRIME DIVISION IN RE: PATRICIA S. DAVIS : Case No. V2002-52032 PATRICIA S. DAVIS : DECISION Applicant : Judge Joseph T. Clark : : : : : : : {¶1}This matter came on to be considered upon applicant s appeal from the May 19, 2003, order issued by the panel of commissioners. The panel s determination affirmed the final decision of the Attorney General, which denied applicant s claim for an award of reparations based upon the finding that applicant failed to qualify as a victim of criminally injurious conduct under the motor vehicle exception for R.C. 2743.51(C)(1). 2743.52(A) {¶2}R.C. places the burden of proof on an applicant to satisfy the Court of Claims Commissioners that the requirements for an award have been met by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Rios (1983), 8 Ohio Misc.2d 4, 8 OBR 63, 455 N.E.2d 1374. applicant The panel found, upon review of the evidence, that failed to present sufficient evidence to meet her burden. {¶3}The standard for reviewing claims that are appealed to the court is established by R.C. 2743.61(C), which provides in pertinent part: If upon hearing and consideration of the record and evidence, the judge decides that the decision of the panel of commissioners is unreasonable or unlawful, the judge shall reverse and vacate the decision or modify it and enter judgment Case No. V2002-52032 on the claim. -1- DECISION The decision of the judge of the court of claims is final. her {¶4}In brief, applicant asserts that the panel s decision was unreasonable and unlawful because the driver of the car that struck the motorcycle she was riding on unexpected left-hand turn in front of the motorcycle. made an According to the police report contained in the claim file, the driver of the vehicle that struck the motorcycle fled the scene of the accident. Applicant contends that the offender was driving in a reckless manner, in violation of R.C. 2903.08. applicant to establish her eligibility However, for for an award of reparations pursuant to R.C. 2743.51(C)(1)(d) and 2903.08, it is necessary for her to show that the offender acted with an absence of care or an absolute perverse indifference to the safety of others. In re Calhoun (1994), 66 Ohio Misc.2d 159, quoting Roszman v. Sammett (1971), 26 Ohio St.2d 94 at 98. {¶5}Upon review of the file in this matter, the court finds that the panel of commissioners was not arbitrary in finding that applicant did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that she was entitled to an award of reparations. {¶6}Based on the evidence and R.C. 2743.61, it is the court s opinion that the decision of the panel of commissioners was reasonable and lawful. decision of the Therefore, this court affirms the three-commissioner panel, applicant s claim. JOSEPH T. CLARK Judge and hereby denies Case No. V2002-52032 -1- DECISION IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO VICTIMS OF CRIME DIVISION IN RE: PATRICIA S. DAVIS : Case No. V2002-52032 PATRICIA S. DAVIS : ORDER Applicant : Judge Joseph T. Clark : : : : : : : Upon review of the evidence, the court finds the order of the panel of commissioners must be affirmed and applicant s appeal must be denied. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1) The order of May 19, 2003, (Jr. Vol. 2250, Pages 22- 23) is approved, affirmed and adopted; 2) This claim is DENIED and judgment entered for the State of Ohio; 3) Costs assumed by the reparations fund. JOSEPH T. CLARK Judge AMR/cmd A copy of the foregoing was personally served upon the Attorney General and sent by regular mail to Summit County Prosecuting Attorney and to: Filed 11-14-2003 Jr. Vol. 2251, Pg. 177 To S.C. Reporter 12-24-2003

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.