In re Hupp
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as In re Hupp, 2006-Ohio-5140.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO VICTIMS OF CRIME DIVISION www.cco.state.oh.us IN RE: DOUGLAS E. HUPP, SR. : Case No. V2005-80681 DOUGLAS E. HUPP, SR. : ORDER OF A THREECOMMISSIONER PANEL Applicant : : : : : : {¶ 1} The applicant filed a reparations application seeking allowable clothing expense, work reimbursement loss, as a replacement result of aggravated vehicular assault incident. the Attorney General denied the a services February loss, and 28, 2004 On February 28, 2005, claim pursuant to R.C. 2743.60(D) contending that all the applicant s economic loss had been or may be recovered by collateral sources, namely Anthem health insurance and an insurance settlement. On March 29, 2005, the applicant filed a request for reconsideration. On September 27, 2005, the Attorney General granted the applicant an award in the amount of $31,895.69 for unreimbursed economic loss, after an economic loss apportionment analysis. 18, 2005, Attorney the applicant General s filed September a 27, notice 2005 of Final appeal On October from Decision. the The applicant maintained that he had sustained severe injuries, that Case No. V2005-80681 he could no -1- longer work, insurance coverage. and ORDER that he had lost his health On February 24, 2006, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss and Remand and indicated that they had reached an agreement as to unreimbursed economic loss. the amount of the applicant s A panel of commissioners denied the joint motion and requested a written detailed explanation as to how the parties arrived at the settlement figure. 2006, the Attorney recommending a new General award filed amount a of supplemental $22,825.13. On May 18, memorandum Hence, this matter was heard by this panel of three commissioners on June 21, 2006 at 10:30 A.M. {¶ 2} The pro se applicant and an Assistant Attorney General attended the hearing. The Assistant Attorney General presented a detailed review of the calculations and answered questions from the panel of commissioners. The applicant informed the panel that he had incurred an additional $2,500.00 in attorney s fees during the settlement process that was not included in the Attorney General s calculations. The Assistant Attorney General raised no objection to the applicant s statement of incurred attorney s fees. {¶ 3} From review of the file and with full and careful consideration given to all of the information presented at the Case No. V2005-80681 -1- ORDER hearing, this panel makes the following determination. We find that the applicant incurred unreimbursed economic loss in the amount of $25,325.13 ($22,825.13 + $2,500.00). Therefore, the September 27, 2005 decision of the Attorney General shall be modified to grant the applicant an award in the amount of $25,325.13 for unreimbursed economic loss. {¶ 4} IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT {¶ 5} The September 27, 2005 decision of the Attorney General is MODIFIED to render judgment in favor of the applicant in the amount of $25,325.13; {¶ 6} This claim is remanded to the Attorney General for payment of the award; {¶ 7} This applicant s order right is to entered file a without prejudice supplemental to the compensation application, within five years of this order, pursuant to R.C. 2743.68; {¶ 8} Costs are assumed by the court of claims victims of crime fund. _______________________________________ LLOYD PIERRE-LOUIS Commissioner [Cite as In re Hupp, 2006-Ohio-5140.] _______________________________________ JAMES H. HEWITT III Commissioner _______________________________________ GREGORY P. BARWELL Commissioner ID #\12-kb-tad-062706 A copy of the foregoing was personally served upon the Attorney General and sent by regular mail to Licking County Prosecuting Attorney and to: Filed 8-17-2006 Jr. vol. 2261, Pgs. 72-74 To S.C. Reporter 9-29-2006
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.
