In re Glasgow
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as In re Glasgow, 2003-Ohio-7091.]
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO
VICTIMS OF CRIME DIVISION
IN RE: PAUL H. GLASGOW
:
Case No. V2003-40631
PAUL H. GLASGOW
:
ORDER OF A THREECOMMISSIONER PANEL
Applicant
:
: : : :
:
{¶1} This appeal came to be heard before this panel of three commissioners on
September 11, 2003 at 10:50 A.M. upon the applicant’s June 25, 2003 appeal from the June 10,
2003 Final Decision of the Attorney General.
{¶2} The applicant filed a reparations application on November 18, 2002 seeking
reimbursement of expenses incurred in relation to a November 12, 2000 assault. Originally, the
Attorney General denied the claim pursuant to R.C. 2743.60(A) and R.C. 2743.56. The Attorney
General asserted that the applicant failed to file a reparations application within two years of the
criminally injurious conduct and that the incident was never reported to law enforcement
officials. The Attorney General also contended that the applicant was not a victim of criminally
injurious conduct because hospital records indicate that the applicant was wrestling with his
roommate when he was accidentally struck in the mouth. On reconsideration, the Attorney
General denied the claim solely on the basis that the applicant failed to file a timely reparations
application. The applicant filed an appeal of the Attorney General’s Final Decision.
Case No. V2003-40631
-1-
ORDER
{¶3} Attorney Cassandra Mayer and an Assistant Attorney General attended the hearing
and presented oral argument for this panel’s consideration. Attorney Mayer stated that the
applicant was assaulted by his roommate on approximately November 12, 2000.
Counsel
explained that the applicant initially reported the incident as horseplay while in the presence of
his roommate, however on November 13, 2000 the applicant filed a police report indicating that
he was assaulted. Counsel asserted that since the police report reflects the assault date of
November 13, 2000 then that date should be controlling. Attorney Mayer argued that the
applicant would have been ineligible to participate in the program had the police not determined
the incident to have been an assault. Lastly counsel asserted that the applicant, who is truly a
victim of crime, should not be punished for the slight delay since there is only a one day
difference.
{¶4} However, the Assistant Attorney General maintained that the claim must be denied
pursuant to R.C. 2743.56 since the applicant failed to timely file, a reparations application
according to the postmark date of November 13, 2002. The Assistant Attorney General argued
that R.C. 2743.56(B)(2) clearly states that an application concerning an adult victim of
criminally injurious conduct is to be filed within two years after the “occurrence” of the
criminally injurious conduct. Accordingly, the Assistant Attorney General argued that since the
incident occurred on November 12, 2000 then the reparations application should have been
postmarked by November 12, 2002.
{¶5} R.C. 2743.56(A) states:
{¶6} A claim for an award of reparations shall be commenced by filing an application for
an award of reparations with the attorney general. The application may be filed by mail. If the
Case No. V2003-40631
-1-
ORDER
application is filed by mail, the post-marked date of the application shall be considered the filing
date of the application. The application shall be in a form prescribed by the attorney general and
shall include a release authorizing the attorney general and the court of claims to obtain any
report, document, or information that relates to the determination of the claim for an award of
reparations that is requested in the application.
{¶7} R.C. 2743.56(B)(2) states:
{¶8} (B) All applications for an award of reparations shall be filed as follows:
{¶9} (2) If the victim of the criminally injurious conduct was an adult, within two years
after the occurrence of the criminally injurious conduct.
{¶10} From review of the file and with full and careful consideration given to all the
information presented at the hearing, this panel makes the following determination. In light
of R.C. 2743.56, we find that the applicant failed to file a timely reparations application.
Therefore, the June 10, 2003 decision of the Attorney General shall be affirmed.
{¶11} IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT
{¶12} 1) The June 10, 2003 decision of the Attorney General is AFFIRMED;
{¶13} 2) This claim is DENIED and judgment is entered for the state of Ohio;
{¶14} 3) Costs are assumed by the court of claims victims of crime fund.
_______________________________________
DALE A. THOMPSON
Commissioner
Case No. V2003-40631
-1-
ORDER
_______________________________________
CLARK B. WEAVER, SR.
_______________________________________
ASHER W. SWEENEY
A copy of the foregoing was personally served upon the Attorney General and sent by
regular mail to Richland County Prosecuting Attorney and to:
Filed 11-4-2003
Jr. Vol. 2251, Pg. 168-171
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.
