In re Henry

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as In re Henry, 2005-Ohio-4235.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO VICTIMS OF CRIME DIVISION www.cco.state.oh.us IN RE: MARVIN E. HENRY : : MARVIN E. HENRY Applicant (1987-86506) Case No. V2002-50676 OPINION OF A THREECOMMISSIONER PANEL : : : : : : {¶ 1} On June 29, 2004, the applicant filed a supplemental compensation application seeking additional economic loss as a result of an August 19, 1987 assault incident. On December 1, 2004, the Attorney General denied the applicant s claim pursuant to R.C. 2743.52(A) contending that the applicant failed to prove that he incurred additional economic loss as a result of the criminally applicant 2005, the contending injurious filed a request Attorney that conduct. the for On December 27, reconsideration. General denied the applicant failed to On claim prove 2004, March once that the his 7, again 2001 medical treatment is related to the 1987 criminally injurious conduct. On March 21, 2005, the applicant filed a notice of appeal to the Attorney General s March 7, 2005 Final Decision. Hence, this matter came to be heard before this panel of three commissioners on June 8, 2005 at 10:30 A.M. {¶ 2} The pro se applicant, via telephone, and an Assistant Attorney General attended the hearing argument for this panel s consideration. that he incurred seeking treatment additional for his medical back, criminally injurious conduct. and presented oral Marvin Henry testified expenses which in 2001 resulted while from the Mr. Henry noted that prior to 1987 he had no previous back treatments. However the applicant noted that, after the criminally injurious conduct, he suffered from an abnormality in his spine area and experienced pain in various areas of his back. consulted primary with care and sought physician, Mr. Henry explained that he had treatment prior to from being clinic for evaluation and treatment. Dr. Jefferies, referred to the his pain The applicant informed the panel that in 1999 he began treatment with pain specialists Dr. Wolfe and Dr. Hatfield. Mr. Henry contended that Dr. Wolfe, in an August 23, 2001 Medical Information Report, indicated that his back pain was related to the criminally injurious conduct. Lastly, Mr. Henry stated that he was refused further treatment because he was unable to pay treatment costs. {¶ 3} The Assistant Attorney General, after hearing the applicant s testimony, continued to maintain that the applicant failed to sufficiently prove that he incurred additional economic loss as a result of the criminally injurious conduct. The Assistant Attorney General acknowledged that the applicant may have and may still be experiencing back pain, but contended that the applicant s 2001 treatment concerning his back was not a result of the criminally injurious conduct and therefore is not compensable. applicant has The Assistant Attorney General stated that the yet to submit any medical documentation that certifies his 2001 back treatment is related to the criminally injurious conduct. The Assistant Attorney General argued that the August 23, 2001 Medical Information Report by Dr. Wolfe does not state that the applicant s back pain is related to the 1987 assault, but merely indicates what the applicant told Dr. Wolfe about his condition. The Assistant Attorney General asserted that Dr. Wolfe failed to provide a medical diagnosis concerning whether the criminally applicant s injurious back conduct, condition but was noted related that to Dr. the Wolfe specifically stated that the cause of the applicant s injury is unknown. {¶ 4} After careful review of the file and in full consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, we make the following determination. We find that the applicant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his 2001 medical treatment is related to the 1987 criminally injurious conduct. A determination criminally injurious concerning conduct is whether entitled to a victim of an award for economic loss requires application of principles of traditional proximate cause standards. The quantum of evidence required is a preponderance of competent, material, and relevant evidence of record on that issue. Furthermore, there is a long standing requirement in the law of evidence in Ohio that damages for claimed directly injury personal resulting sustained. injuries from The are and recoverable as a natural evidence must only for consequence tend reasonable certainty of such a result exists. to injuries of show the that See In re Toney, V79-3029jud (9-4-81), In re Saylor (1982), 1 Ohio Misc. 2d 1, and In re Bailey, V78-3484jud (8-23-82). {¶ 5} In this case, Mr. Henry has failed to present sufficient medical documentation from any of his physicians indicating that his persistent back pain stems from the 1987 assault incident. Should the applicant obtain such information that would be an appropriate application. basis for Therefore, filing the a March Attorney General shall be affirmed. supplemental 7, 2005 compensation decision of the [Cite as In re Henry, 2005-Ohio-4235.] _______________________________________ THOMAS H. BAINBRIDGE Commissioner _______________________________________ CLARK B. WEAVER, SR. Commissioner _______________________________________ LLOYD PIERRE-LOUIS Commissioner IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO VICTIMS OF CRIME DIVISION IN RE: MARVIN E. HENRY : : MARVIN E. HENRY Applicant (1987-86506) Case No. V2002-50676 ORDER OF A THREECOMMISSIONER PANEL : : : : : : IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT 1) The March 7, 2005 decision of the Attorney General is hereby AFFIRMED; 2) The claim is DENIED and judgment is rendered in favor of the state of Ohio; Case No. V2002-50676 3) This applicant s order right -1is to entered file a ORDER without prejudice supplemental to the compensation application, within five years of this order, pursuant to R.C. 2743.68; Case No. V2002-50676 -1- ORDER 4) Costs are assumed by the court of claims victims of crime fund. _______________________________________ THOMAS H. BAINBRIDGE Commissioner _______________________________________ CLARK B. WEAVER, SR. Commissioner _______________________________________ LLOYD PIERRE-LOUIS Commissioner ID #\5-dld-tad-061305 A copy of the foregoing was personally served upon the Attorney General and sent by regular mail to Crawford County Prosecuting Attorney and to: Filed 7-29-2005 Jr. Vol. 2257, Pgs. 182-183 To S.C. Reporter 8-12-2005 Case No. V2002-50676 -1- ORDER

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.