In re Milbert
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as In re Milbert, 2004-Ohio-4566.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO VICTIMS OF CRIME DIVISION IN RE: DENISE R. MILBERT : Case No. V2003-41093 DENISE R. MILBERT : DECISION Applicant Magistrate : Anderson M. Renick, (V96-41277) : : : : : : : : matter {¶1}This came on to be considered upon applicant s appeal from the March 3, 2004, order issued by the panel of commissioners. final decision applicant s finding claim that reparations of The panel s determination affirmed the the for an applicant application Attorney award failed within of General, which denied reparations based on the to file five years her of supplemental the court s December 30, 1997, order. {¶2}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 applicant failed to present sufficient evidence to meet her burden. {¶3}Pursuant to Civ.R. 53, the court undersigned magistrate to hear applicant s appeal. appointed the {¶4}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. {¶5}Neither applicant nor anyone on her behalf appeared at the hearing. {¶6}Upon magistrate arbitrary review of that the finds in finding that the file panel of applicant in this matter, commissioners did not was show by the not a preponderance of the evidence that she was entitled to an award of reparations. {¶7}Based on the evidence and R.C. 2743.61, it is the magistrate s opinion commissioners was that reasonable the and decision lawful. of the panel Therefore, it of is recommended that the decision of the three-commissioner panel be affirmed and applicant s claim be denied. ANDERSON M. RENICK Magistrate AMR/cmd A copy of the foregoing was personally served upon the Attorney General and sent by regular mail to: IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO VICTIMS OF CRIME DIVISION IN RE: DENISE R. MILBERT : Case No. V2003-41093 DENISE R. MILBERT : ORDER Applicant : : : : : : : : {¶8}On May 28, 2004, a hearing was held in this matter before a magistrate of this court. On June 9, 2004, the magistrate issued a decision wherein he found that applicant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she was entitled to an award of reparations. {¶9}Civ.R. 53 states that: [a] party may, within fourteen days of the filing of the decision, serve and file written objections to the magistrate s decision. 2004, applicant filed an objection to the On June 22, magistrate s decision. {¶10}Contrary to applicant s assertion, this court has consistently precludes held that the consideration application determination that by is not the plain of a filed language of R.C. supplemental within Attorney five General, reparations years a 2743.68 of panel a of commissioners, or a judge of the court of claims. {¶11}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. {¶12}IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1) The June 9, 2004, decision of the magistrate is ADOPTED; 2) The order of March 3, 2004, (Jr. Vol. 2253, Pages 14-15) is approved, affirmed and adopted; 3) This claim is DENIED and judgment entered for the State of Ohio; 4) Costs assumed by the reparations fund. JUDGE AMR/cmd A copy of the foregoing was personally served upon the Attorney General and sent by regular mail to Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney and to: Filed 7-15-2004 Jr. Vol. 2254, Pgs. 95-96 To S.C. Reporter 8-26-2004
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.
