SUSAN D. BROWN, Commissioner.
On January 29, 1988, in Stark County, Ohio, the applicant, William A. Dray, suffered personal injury as a result of an assault by Kevin Kennedy.
The applicant was neither related to, nor an accomplice of, the offender.
The assault was reported to the Perry Township Police Department within seventy-two hours after its occurrence.
The Attorney General has recommended the applicant's claim for reparations be denied pursuant to R.C. 2743.60(C) on grounds he failed to cooperate with appropriate law enforcement agencies.
R.C. 2743.60(C) states:
"A single commissioner or a panel of commissioners, upon a finding that the claimant or victim has not fully cooperated with appropriate law enforcement agencies, may deny a claim or reconsider and reduce an award of reparations."
The file contains a copy of the initial investigation as reported by the Perry Township Police Department. This report, dated January 29, 1988, states that the victim was unable to give a statement due to his injuries, and that a follow-up investigation would be completed. However, reports of any follow-up investigations are not contained in the file.
Nevertheless, the Perry Township Police Department reported to the Attorney General's filed investigator, by phone on June 15, 1989, that the victim was very uncooperative, and despite the department's several tries to contact him, the applicant did not give a statement until May 20, 1989, one year and five months following the criminally injurious conduct. The applicant's reason for the delay was that he was embarrassed and he did not want to prosecute Mrs. Kennedy's husband. Further, the applicant commented to Chief Smith and Patrolman Meader that he did not want to prosecute, he just wanted his bills paid.
The applicant's refusal to prosecute the offender is not, in itself, a failure to cooperate fully with law enforcement authorities as required by R.C. 2743.60(C). In re Bolster (May 2, 1979), Ct. of Claims No. V77-8964jud, unreported, and In re Lewis (May 5, 1983), Ct. of Claims No. V82-43655sc, unreported. The question is whether the applicant's seventeen-month delay constitutes a failure to fully cooperate with the law enforcement authorities.
In In re Dawkins (June 3, 1989), Ct. of Claims No. V79-3642jud, unreported, the court found the applicant had failed to cooperate with the law enforcement agency. In that case, the applicant initiated prosecution proceedings but did not attend the preliminary hearing. As a result, the complaint was dismissed and the sheriff's office refused to reinstate the complaint as it had learned the applicant was a friend of the offender. The court held that the applicant's neglect in maintaining contact with the sheriff's office frustrated the prosecution and, in light of the lack of credibility on the part of the applicant, the court found the neglect inexcusable.
As a general rule any action, inaction, or inexcusable neglect by an applicant which substantially impedes or impairs investigation or prosecution proceedings which have been initiated by the law enforcement authorities, or which would have been initiated but for the action, inaction, or inexcusable neglect, constitutes a failure to fully cooperate as required by R.C. 2743.60(C). Lewis, supra.
William A. Dray neglected to contact the Perry Township Police Department for one year and five months following the criminally injurious conduct. Dray's delay substantially impaired the department's investigation proceedings as Kevin Kennedy, the offender, was never arrested or charged with assault.
The intent of the legislature in enacting the full cooperation provision was to encourage victims to affirmatively aid the authorities in identifying and prosecuting criminal offenders. A crime is an offense not only against the victim, but also against the citizens of this state. Therefore, the people of Ohio, in compensating a victim for injuries, have the right to expect the victim to aid the people in protecting themselves against further crime which may possibly be committed by the same offender. In re Bolster (May 2, 1979), Ct. of Claims No. V77-0964jud, unreported.
Following the incident, Dray became unconscious and was transported to the emergency room where he was treated and released. Although Dray could not be questioned at the scene of the incident, he was able to communicate with police investigators the following morning. However, Dray postponed contacting the police until May 20, 1989 because he was embarrassed by the surrounding circumstances.
In view of the foregoing, Dray's desire to avoid personal embarrassment did not excuse him from assisting the authorities in identifying and prosecuting his assailant. Therefore, I find the applicant's neglect inexcusable and sufficient to constitute a failure to "fully cooperate" with law enforcement agencies, as defined by R.C. 2743.60(C).
Therefore, the applicant's claim must be denied.
Findings of Fact
1. The applicant on January 29, 1988, in Stark County, Ohio, was criminally assaulted by Kevin Kennedy.
2. The applicant was neither related to, nor an accomplice of, the assailant.
3. The assault was reported to the Perry Township Police Department within seventy-two hours after the occurrence.
4. The applicant, capable of communicating with the Perry Township Police Department the day following the incident, refused to give a statement until May 20, 1989, one year and five months following the criminally injurious conduct.
5. The file contains an assignment executed by the applicant on May 25, 1989, whereby the applicant's right to receive reimbursement for certain unreimbursed allowable expenses was assigned to the provider, Doctor's Hospital of Stark County. The Attorney General's finding of fact and recommendation did not address the assignment. I find the assignment is valid but unenforceable since the applicant's claim must be denied for failure to fully cooperate with the law enforcement agency.
Conclusions of Law
1. The applicant qualifies as a "claimant" as defined by R.C. 2743.51(A).
2. The applicant's delay in making a statement to the Perry Township Police Department is inexcusable neglect and constitutes a failure to fully cooperate sufficient to deny this claim pursuant to R.C. 2743.60(C).
3. The May 25, 1989 assignment is valid pursuant to R.C. 2743.66(E), but unenforceable because the applicant's claim is denied pursuant to R.C. 2743.60(C).
The application for reparations will be denied and an order in conformity with this opinion will be entered.
Order
1. The claim is denied and judgment is entered for the state of Ohio.
2. The purported assignment submitted by Doctor's Hospital of Stark County is valid but unenforceable.
3. The Clerk shall send a copy of this opinion and order to Doctor's Hospital of Stark County, 400 Austin Avenue N.W. Massillon, Ohio 44646.
4. Costs are assumed by the reparations fund.
So ordered.