Opinion
2021-00419VI
06-28-2022
IN RE: TWILA JEAN MARTIN, TWILA JEAN MARTIN Applicant
Sent to S.C. Reporter 12/21/22
ORDER
Patrick E. Sheeran, Judge
{¶1} On February 17, 2022, the Court adopted the Magistrate's Decision-which affirmed the Final Decision of the Attorney General-and entered judgment in this case. Subsequently, on February 24, 2022, Applicant submitted a letter to the Court, which the Court interprets as a motion for reconsideration.
{¶2} A decision the Court of Claims regarding an award or denial of reparations for economic loss arising from criminally injurious conduct is final. R.C. 2743.61(B). Furthermore, "[although the Victims of Crime Compensation Program is not bound by * * * the Rules of Civil Procedure, the rules are used as a point of reference in determining reasonableness." In re Huff, 91 Ohio Misc.2d 131, 698 N.E.2d 122 (Ct. of Cl.1996). And "the Rules of Civil Procedure specifically limit relief from judgments to motions expressly provided for within the same Rules. A motion for reconsideration is conspicuously absent within the Rules." Pitts v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 67 Ohio St.2d 378, 380, 423 N.E.2d 1105 (1981).
{¶3} There is no provision in statute or the civil rules allowing for the Court to reconsider its final judgment in this case. Therefore, Applicant's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.