In re Williams
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as In re Williams, 2006-Ohio-4025.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO VICTIMS OF CRIME DIVISION www.cco.state.oh.us IN RE: YUSEF K. WILLIAMS : : YUSEF K. WILLIAMS Applicant Case No. V2005-80223 ORDER OF A THREECOMMISSIONER PANEL : : : : : : {¶ 1} On July 30, 2004, the applicant filed a supplemental compensation application seeking reimbursement of expenses incurred with respect to a January 9, 2003 shooting incident, which left him paralyzed. On November 5, 2004, the Attorney General denied the applicant s claim pursuant to R.C. 2743.52(A) contending economic that the On loss. applicant November 19, request for reconsideration. failed to 2004, prove the he incurred applicant filed a On January 19, 2005, the Attorney General determined that no modification of the previous decision was warranted. of appeal to Decision. reversed On April 1, 2005, the applicant filed a notice the On the Attorney December Attorney 30, General s January 2005, panel General s a Final 19, of Decision, 2005 Final commissioners granted the applicant an award in the amount of $13,834.00 for unreimbursed allowable expense (wheelchair costs), ordered the applicant to file an economic itemized loss, supplemental supplemental ordered memorandum the memorandum Attorney addressing addressing General the to all submit applicant s his a total economic loss from January 9, 2003 through December 31, 2005, and continued the matter. On April 4, 2006, a panel of commissioners modified the previous panel decision to grant the Case No. V2005-80223 -1- ORDER applicant an additional award in the amount of $2,593.63 for unreimbursed work loss incurred from January 9, 2003 through December 31, 2005, ordered the Attorney General to file a new supplemental memorandum addressing whether the reduction in the applicant s Social Security benefits is compensable under the program, and continued the matter. On April 28, 2006, the Attorney General filed a supplemental memorandum contending that the applicant s reduction in Social Security benefits is not compensable. This matter came to be heard before this panel of three commissioners on May 17, 2006 at 10:35 A.M. {¶ 2} The applicant s attorney and an Assistant Attorney General attended the hearing and presented oral argument for the panel s prior consideration. to the The criminally applicant s injurious attorney conduct, stated the that applicant received $363.00 per month in Social Security benefits and lived with his mother. The applicant paid his mother $150.00 per month as a contribution to the household. As a result of the injuries he sustained from the criminally injurious conduct, the applicant currently resides in an assisted living facility and his Social Security benefits have been reduced to $30.00 per month. Counsel incurring argued replacement assistant, and other that the services applicant loss services), is (nursing which is a now indirectly care, form a of hygiene economic loss, as evidenced by his reduced Social Security income. {¶ 3} In Attorney response General to stated counsel s that argument, Medicaid, a the Assistant collateral source pursuant to R.C. 2743.51(B), is now paying for the applicant s care while he is in the assisted living facility and therefore, the applicant has failed to incur the alleged loss. The Case No. V2005-80223 Assistant Attorney -1General ORDER asserted the applicant has two collateral sources, Social Security and Medicaid, as a result of the criminally injurious conduct that have allowed the applicant to recoup the majority of his economic loss. The Assistant Attorney General stated that in this case, there is no statutory remedy available to the applicant since his claimed loss does not qualify as economic loss under R.C. 2743.51(E). {¶ 4} From review of the file and with careful consideration given to all panel makes the the information following presented at determination. the We hearing, find this that the applicant has failed to prove that he incurred any additional economic loss. shall remain Therefore, the panel s April 4, 2006 decision in full force and effect. The portion of applicant s appeal seeking additional economic loss is denied. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT 1) The April 4, 2006 order of a three commissioner panel (Jr. Vol. 2260, Pg. 14-18) remains in full force and effect; 2) This claim is remanded to the Attorney General for payment of the April 4, 2006 award in the amount of $2,593.63; 3) This applicant s order right is to entered file without a prejudice supplemental to the compensation application, within five years of this order, pursuant to R.C. 2743.68; 4) The portion of applicant s appeal wherein he seeks reimbursement for reduced monthly Social Security benefits is DENIED; Case No. V2005-80223 -1- ORDER 5) Costs are assumed by the court of claims victims of crime fund. _______________________________________ JAMES H. HEWITT III Commissioner _______________________________________ GREGORY P. BARWELL Commissioner _______________________________________ RANDI OSTRY LE HOTY Commissioner ID #\22-dld-tad-053106 A copy of the foregoing was personally served upon the Attorney General and sent by regular mail to Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney and to: Filed 7-17-2006 Jr. Vol. 2261, Pgs. 1 - 4 To S.C. Reporter 8-3-2006 Case No. V2005-80223 -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.
