2007-Ohio-7281
No. V2006-20976.Court of Claims of Ohio, Victims of Crime Division.
Filed June 8, 2007.
DECISION
J. CRAIG WRIGHT., Judge.
{¶ 1} This matter came on to be considered upon applicant’s appeal from the March 2, 2007, order issued by the panel of commissioners. The panel’s determination affirmed the final decision of the Attorney General, which denied applicant’s claim for an award of reparations based upon the finding that applicant had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Moreland was a victim of criminally injurious conduct.
{¶ 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} Neither applicant nor anyone on her behalf appeared at either the judicial hearing or the hearing before the panel of commissioners.
{¶ 4} The standard for reviewing claims that are appealed to the court is
Page 2
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} Upon review of the file in this matter, the court finds that the panel of commissioners was not arbitrary in finding that applicant did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that she was entitled to an award of reparations.
{¶ 6} Based on the evidence and R.C. 2743.61, it is the court’s opinion that the decision of the panel of commissioners was reasonable and lawful. Therefore, this court affirms the decision of the three-commissioner panel, and hereby denies applicant’s claim.
Page 3
ORDER {¶ 7} Upon review of the evidence, the court finds the order of the panel of commissioners must be affirmed and applicant’s appeal must be denied.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
{¶ 8} 1) The order of March 2, 2007, (Jr. Vol. 2263, Pages 151-154) is approved, affirmed and adopted;
{¶ 9} 2) This claim is DENIED and judgment entered for the State of Ohio;
{¶ 10} 3) Costs assumed by the reparations fund.
Page 1