[Cite as In re Mickunas, 2005-Ohio-6054.]
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO
VICTIMS OF CRIME DIVISION
www.cco.state.oh.us
IN RE: JOAN T. MICKUNAS
:
Case No. V2005-80452
JOAN T. MICKUNAS
:
ORDER OF A THREECOMMISSIONER PANEL
Applicant
:
: : : :
:
{¶ 1} On August 28, 2004, Joan Mickunas (“applicant” or “Ms. Mickunas”) filed a
reparations application seeking reimbursement of expenses incurred with respect to a series of
domestic violence and stalking incidents occurring from January 30, 2002 through September
2002. On March 1, 2005, the Attorney General granted the applicant an award in the amount of
$120.00 in unreimbursed counseling expenses. On April 8, 2005, the applicant filed a request
for reconsideration. On June 10, 2005, the Attorney General determined that no modification of
the previous decision was warranted. On June 20, 2005, the applicant filed a notice of appeal to
the Attorney General’s June 10, 2005 Final Decision. Hence, this matter was heard by this panel
of three commissioners on September 8, 2005 at 11:00 A.M.
{¶ 2} The pro se applicant and an Assistant Attorney General attended the hearing and
presented brief comments for this panel’s consideration. Ms. Mickunas briefly testified that she
was a victim of domestic violence from January 30, 2002 through September 2002.
The
applicant explained that she obtained a Civil Protection Order (“CPO”) on April 12, 2002, which
remains in effect until 2007. The applicant indicated that she seeks reimbursement of related
expenses (attorney fees and security system costs) incurred from February 2002 to the present.
Case No. V2005-80452
-1-
ORDER
The applicant asserted that the abuse she sustained was ongoing and hence she filed a reparations
application based on the entire event and not a single incident.
{¶ 3} The Assistant Attorney General maintained that those expenses incurred in
February 2002 are not recoverable since the applicant failed to file a timely reparations
application. However, the Assistant Attorney General acknowledged that a percentage of the
applicant’s attorney fees are recoverable, since a portion of the fees fall within the covered time
period. The Assistant Attorney General requested the claim be remanded to the Attorney
General’s office for calculations of the applicant’s recoverable attorney fees.
{¶ 4} Since the inception of the Victims of Crime Program, when a victim of repeated and
prolonged criminally injurious conduct (such as sexual abuse or domestic violence) the court has
grouped the series of incidents together to create a single criminally injurious conduct incident to
accommodate victims as well as program administrators. This method of grouping various
incidents of criminally injurious conduct was undertaken to diminish the bureaucratic nightmare
that would result by requiring a victim to file a reparations application every time he/she was
assaulted. We believe to do otherwise, would result in a high volume of filings that essentially
involves the same act and covers many of the same expenses. Moreover, requiring multiple
single filings would also necessitate that program administrators separate and apportion expenses
for multiple claims: A daunting and chaotic chore to undertake for multiple claims.
{¶ 5} In this case, Ms. Mickunas testified that she was the victim of domestic violence
and stalking from January 30, 2002 through September 2002. We find Ms. Mickunas was a
victim of ongoing and systematic domestic violence and stalking in 2002,which should be
classified as a single incident of criminally injurious conduct. Since September 2002 was the last
Case No. V2005-80452
-1-
ORDER
reported criminally injurious conduct incident in the series, then the reparations filing deadline
would have been September 2004, which the applicant clearly met(the reparations application
was filed on August 28, 2004). Therefore, the June 10, 2005 decision of the Attorney General
shall be reversed and this claim shall be remanded to the Attorney General for economic loss
calculations (covering from January 30, 2002 through September 30, 2005) and decision
consistent with the panel’s findings. Should the applicant incur additional economic loss that
would be an appropriate basis for filing a supplemental compensation application.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT
1) The June 10, 2005 decision of the Attorney General is REVERSED and judgment is
rendered in favor of the applicant;
2) This claim is referred to the Attorney General for economic loss calculations and
decision consistent with the panel’s findings;
3) This order is entered without prejudice to the applicant’s right to file a supplemental
compensation application, within five years of this order, pursuant to R.C. 2743.68;
Case No. V2005-80452
-1-
ORDER
4) Costs are assumed by the court of claims victims of crime fund.
_______________________________________
CLARK B. WEAVER, SR.
Commissioner
_______________________________________
THOMAS H. BAINBRIDGE
Commissioner
_______________________________________
LLOYD PIERRE-LOUIS
Commissioner
ID #\1-dld-tad-5913
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 10-28-2005
Jr. Vol. 2258, Pgs. 171-174
To S.C. Reporter 11-10-2005
Case No. V2005-80452
-1-
ORDER
