In re Timson
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as In re Timson, 2003-Ohio-5510.]
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO
VICTIMS OF CRIME DIVISION
IN RE: JOHN W. TIMSON
:
Case No. V2002-50790
JOHN W. TIMSON
:
DECISION
:
Anderson M. Renick, Magistrate
Applicant
: : : : : : :
{¶1}
This matter came on to be considered upon applicant’s
appeal from the June 12, 2003, order issued by the panel of
commissioners.
The panel’s determination reversed, in part, the
March 24, 2003, final decision of the Attorney General, which
granted
applicant
an
award
of
reparations
$3,019.50 as unreimbursed allowable expense.
in
the
amount
of
The panel also
determined that no additional awards shall be paid to applicant
until his economic loss exceeds the amount that was wrongfully
paid to him, $1,099.50.
{¶2}
appeal.
On August 15, 2003, a hearing was held on applicant’s
On August 18, 2003, applicant filed a motion to strike
the Attorney General’s brief.
{¶3}
R.C.
2743.52(A)
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.
The panel found, upon review of the evidence, that
a portion of the award of reparations that was paid to applicant
represented reimbursement for items that were not recoverable as
Case No. V2002-50790
-6-
ORDER
allowable expense pursuant to R.C. 2743.51(F).
{¶4}
Pursuant
to
Civ.R.
53,
the
court
appointed
the
undersigned magistrate to hear applicant’s appeal.
{¶5}
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
on the claim.
The decision of the judge of the court of claims
is final.”
{¶6}
At the hearing, applicant reiterated the arguments set
forth in his brief wherein he raised ten “assignments of error.”
The majority of the issues addressed in applicant’s brief express
his dissatisfaction with the Attorney General’s investigation and
the timeliness of the appeal process.
The first six “assignments
of error” criticize either the investigation reports that were
compiled by the Attorney General’s investigators or their job
qualifications.
commissioners
Applicant
failed
to
also
promptly
asserts
rule
on
that
the
his
panel
motion
of
for
an
“emergency award.”
{¶7}
Although
applicant
raised
numerous
issues
at
the
hearing, the court’s review of this matter is limited to the
issues
that
decision.
were
addressed
in
the
panel’s
June
12,
2003,
With regard to the panel’s ruling on applicant’s March
19, 2003, motion to find the Attorney General in contempt for
allegedly failing to comply with the November 15, 2002, order of
the panel of commissioners, the magistrate finds that the panel
properly
determined
contempt order.
that
there
was
no
evidence
to
support
a
Case No. V2002-50790
{¶8}
Applicant
-6also
ORDER
contends
that
the
panel
improperly
denied his April 8, 2003, motion for “emergency” housing and hip
surgery
because
he
was
unable
to
obtain
without financial assistance for housing.
that
applicant’s
housing
expense
was
“free”
hip
surgery
The panel determined
not
related
to
the
criminally injurious conduct and that applicant is eligible for
Medicaid or the Ohio Hospital Care Assurance Program (HCAP).
Applicant did not present any evidence to counter the Attorney
General’s determination.
Furthermore, the evidence suggests that
applicant has not yet incurred the housing expense and there is
insufficient evidence to show that applicant’s housing expense
would be medically necessary to treat a physical condition that
is related to the criminally injurious conduct.
noted
in
its
decision,
applicant
may
file
As the panel
a
supplemental
reparations application in the event that any related medical
expense is not covered by either Medicaid or HCAP.
{¶9}
The
final
decision
of
the
Attorney
General
which
granted applicant an award of reparations was issued pursuant to
the November 15, 2002, decision of the panel of commissioners
that
determined
that
applicant
should
be
reimbursed
for
all
allowable expense incurred as a result of his travel to Florida
to seek medical treatment.
The portion of the Attorney General’s
March 24, 2003, final decision that was reversed by the panel of
commissioners
had
granted
applicant
an
award
of
reparations
including $1,099.50 for storage facility expense in Columbus,
Ohio and for mailbox fees incurred during his travel to Florida.
The panel determined that neither rent nor mail accommodations
qualified as an allowable expense.
{¶10} R.C. 2743.51(F)(1) states in part: “‘Allowable expense’
means reasonable charges incurred for reasonably needed products,
Case No. V2002-50790
-6-
ORDER
services, and accommodations, including those for medical care,
rehabilitation, rehabilitative occupational training, and other
remedial treatment and care ***.”
Although applicant asserts
that he rented the storage facility and mailboxes as a result of
his travel to Florida to obtain medical treatment, the magistrate
finds
that
these
expenses
were
not
reasonably
needed
accommodations that were related to applicant’s medical care.
Rather, the expenses for which applicant seeks reimbursement are
day-to-day living expenses that are not directly related to the
criminally injurious conduct and are not compensable under the
Victims of Crime Compensation Act.
{¶11} Upon review of the file in this matter, the magistrate
finds
that
the
panel
of
commissioners
was
not
arbitrary
in
finding that applicant did not show by a preponderance of the
evidence that he was entitled to an award of reparations for the
mail services and storage facility fees.
{¶12} Based
on
the
magistrate’s
opinion
commissioners
was
evidence
that
and
the
reasonable
R.C.
decision
and
2743.61,
of
lawful.
it
the
is
the
panel
of
Therefore,
it
is
recommended that the decision of the three-commissioner panel be
affirmed, and that applicant should not be granted any additional
reimbursement
until
his
economic
loss
exceeds
the
amount
wrongfully paid, $1,099.50.
{¶13} Additionally, applicant’s August 18, 2003, motion to
strike the Attorney General’s brief is DENIED.
{¶14} A party may file written objections to the magistrate’s
decision within 14 days of the filing of the decision. A party
shall not assign as error on appeal the court’s adoption of any
finding
or
conclusion
of
law
contained
in
the
magistrate’s
decision unless the party timely and specifically objects to that
Case No. V2002-50790
-6-
ORDER
finding or conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(E)(3).
{¶15} On August 15, 2003, a hearing was held in this matter
before a magistrate of this court.
On September 4, 2003, the
magistrate issued a decision wherein he found that applicant
failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was
entitled to an award of reparations for storage facility expense
and mailbox fees and that applicant should not be granted any
additional
reimbursement
until
his
economic
loss
exceeds
the
amount of the wrongfully paid award, $1,099.50.
{¶16} Civ.R. 53 states that:
days
of
the
filing
of
the
“[a] party may, within fourteen
decision,
serve
objections to the magistrate’s decision.”
and
file
written
To date, applicant has
not filed an objection to the magistrate’s decision.
{¶17} Upon review of the claim file, and the magistrate’s
decision,
it
is
the
court’s
finding
that
the
magistrate
was
correct in his analysis of the issues and application of the law.
Accordingly,
this
court
adopts
the
magistrate’s
decision
and
recommendation as its own.
{¶18} IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
{¶19} 1)
The September 4, 2003, decision of the magistrate
is ADOPTED;
{¶20} 2)
The order of June 12, 2003, (Jr. Vol. 2250, Pages
58-65) is approved, affirmed and adopted;
{¶21} 3)
fees
Applicant’s claim for storage expense and mailbox
is DENIED and applicant shall not be granted any additional
reimbursement
until
his
economic
loss
exceeds
wrongfully paid, $1,099.50;
{¶22} 4)
Costs assumed by the reparations fund.
the
amount
Case No. V2002-50790
JUDGE
Filed 9-25-2003
Jr. Vol. 2251, Pgs. 75-76
To S.C. Reporter10-16-2003
-6-
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.
