Opinion
2022-00018VI
06-09-2022
IN RE: JEFFREY A. SANCHEZ, JEFFREY A. SANCHEZ Applicant
Sent to S.C. Reporter 12/21/22
DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE
DANIEL R. BORCHERT, MAGISTRATE JUDGE
{¶1} On June 22, 1993, a single commissioner determined that applicant, Jeffrey A. Sanchez, was a victim of criminally injurious conduct and granted him an award of reparations in the amount of $1,382.00.
{¶2} On December 6, 1994 and June 28, 1996, applicant was granted supplemental reparations awards totaling $1,528.35. Applicant received a total of $2,910.35. On June 10, 1999, applicant was granted a third supplemental award in the amount of $2,104.48. Accordingly, applicant received awards totaling $5,019.83.
{¶3} On September 21, 2021, applicant filed a fourth supplemental compensation application seeking reimbursement for additional dental treatment which he asserted were related to the criminally injurious conduct of May 9, 1992.
{¶4} On October 4, 2021, the Attorney General issued a Finding of Fact and Decision denying applicant's claim for an additional award of reparations since the supplemental compensation application was filed beyond the period required by R.C. 2743.68.
{¶5} On October 13, 2021, applicant submitted a request for reconsideration to the Attorney General. On December 13, 2021, a Final Decision was rendered finding no reason to modify the initial decision. On January 10, 2022, applicant filed a notice of appeal from the December 13, 2021, Final Decision of the Attorney General.
{¶6} A hearing was held before a magistrate on April 7, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. Applicant, applicant's attorney, Michael Falleur, and Senior Assistant Attorney General Megan Hanke, representing the state of Ohio, appeared at the hearing.
{¶7} Applicant testified that he was assaulted in 1992, at which time he sustained multiple gunshot injuries to the upper right chest and face. As a result of being shot in the face, applicant suffered damage to his mouth and teeth, including loss of bone mass in his mouth. Applicant subsequently received awards of reparations that reimbursed him for expenses incurred as a result of medical treatment he received from 1992 to 1997. Applicant testified that he has maintained the dental work provided at that time and believed the surgeries and dental work performed in 1992 to 1997 would be sufficient to last his lifetime and did not foresee that any additional treatment would be necessary. After 1997, applicant did not require additional medical treatment related to the injuries he sustained from the criminally injurious conduct until late 2021 when he filed a supplemental application. Applicant testified that he started to "taste infection" in his mouth but was unsure of the cause. He stated that thereafter, his condition became worse and that his gums began to swell, he then sought professional medical treatment. Based on the evaluation by a dentist, applicant was told that the jawbone and previous dental work had deteriorated and was referred to a surgeon due to presence of metal bullet fragments remaining in his jaw, and the lack of bone remaining in which normal dental work could be performed. Applicant testified that he has had dental surgery within the past year to "put the teeth back in" his mouth. Whereupon, his testimony concluded.
{¶8} In closing, applicant conceded that applicant's supplemental compensation application was filed beyond the limitations of R.C. 2743.68. However, this court in In re Lalli, Ct. of Cl. No. 2013-00106VItc (February 4, 2014) jud rev. (June 4, 2014), 2014-Ohio-5997 used it's equitable powers to toll the statute of limitations contained in R.C. 2743.68. Lalli also presented a case a person who was victim, received an award and then fifteen years later he experienced sinus problems. At that time, it was determined his sinus problems resulted from the criminally injurious conduct years before.
{¶9} A judge of the Court of Claims exercised his equity powers, tolled the statute of limitations under R.C. 2743.68, and remanded the claim to the Attorney General for calculation of additional allowable expenses.
{¶10} Applicant asserts Lalli is similar to the case at bar, where years went by with applicant experiencing no problems. Then in 2021 he had problems with his teeth as a result of the gunshot wound from 1992. Applicant asserts the court should exercise its equitable powers, toll the statute of limitations and remand the case to the Attorney General for calculation of allowable expenses.
{¶11} The Attorney General does not dispute that the ongoing dental issues plaguing applicant are related to the injuries he suffered as a result of the criminally injurious conduct. Although the Attorney General does not dispute the diagnosis, she contends that applicant's claim must be denied pursuant to R.C. 2743.68 inasmuch as the supplemental application is outside the statute of limitations as it was not filed within the permitted time from the date of the last decision. However, if the court so felt equity should toll the statute of limitations, the Attorney General would have no objections considering the dental issues applicant has suffered.
{¶12} Former R.C. 2743.68 states, in part:
"A claimant may file a supplemental reparations application in a claim if a commissioner, panel of commissioners, or a judge of the court of claims, has within five years prior to the filing of the supplemental application, made any of the following determinations:
"(A) That an award, supplemental award, or installment award be granted."
{¶13} This court has previously tolled the statute of limitations pursuant to R.C. 2743.68 for equitable considerations including an applicant's pain, persistent medical problems, post-traumatic stress disorder, and short-term memory loss. In re Preston, Ct. of Cl. No. V2006-21140tc (August 3, 2007) aff'd jud (December 4, 2007), 2007-Ohio-7275; In re Jones, Ct. of Cl. No. V2011-60590tc (August 3, 2013), 2012-Ohio-4845, mag (October 23, 2012) adopt. jud (November 13, 2012). Furthermore, a judge of the Court of Claims has the discretion to determine whether equity should be exercised to toll the statute of limitations contained in R.C. 2743.68. Id; R.C. 2743.61(B).
{¶14} Also, the court has consistently held that a decision on an application for an award of reparations under the Victims of Crime Program is rendered on a case-by-case basis. See In re Swint, Ct. of Cl. No. V2004-60679 jud (January 16, 2007), 2007-Ohio-1421. Upon review of the claim file and upon full and careful consideration given to applicant's testimony and the arguments of the parties, I find that this case is worthy of equitable consideration. However, inasmuch as only a judge of the Court of Claims has the statutory authority to exercise equitable powers in this case, I recommend that the Attorney General's Final Decision of December 13, 2021, be REVERSED, and that applicant shall be permitted to file a supplemental reparations application in this case, and the Attorney General shall be permitted to investigate the claims of economic loss that applicant is requesting.
{¶15} A party may file written objections to the magistrate's decision within 14 days of the filing of the decision, whether or not the court has adopted the decision during that 14-day period as permitted by Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(e)(i). If any party timely files objections, any other party may also file objections not later than ten days after the first objections are filed. A party shall not assign as error on appeal the court's adoption of any factual finding or legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as finding of fact or conclusion of law under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party timely and specifically objects to that factual finding or legal conclusion within 14 days of the filing of the decision, as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b).