In re Q.L.H.

Panel

Commissioners:
Necol Russell-Washington, Presiding
William L. Byers IV
Susan G. Sheridan
ORDER OF A THREE-COMMISSIONER PANEL

{¶1}
On May 13, 2011, applicant, Schuante M. Niang-Hill, filed a compensation application on behalf of Q. L. H., as the result of criminal conduct. On May 20, 2011, the Attorney General issued a finding of fact and decision denying applicant's claim pursuant to R.C. 2743.60(E)(1)(d), since she was convicted of Child Endangering on September 26, 2007, which was within ten years of the occurrence of the crime which happened on April 14, 2011. On March 1, 2012, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration. On March 2, 2012, the Attorney General wrote the applicant a letter explaining that her untimely filed request for reconsideration would not be allowed. The letter went on to state that: "[t]he evidence indicates that you were convicted of Child Endangering on September 26, 2007. Therefore, the law is clear that your claim must be denied. If there is another person who is legally responsible, or becomes legally responsible for (Q. H's) or (T. H's) expenses and is otherwise eligible, that person may file an application for further consideration of these expenses." On March 13, 2012, applicant submitted a letter requesting this case be set for hearing. {¶9} Finally, the applicant was informed if another person who assumed the medical expenses for her children filed a compensation application, and otherwise met all eligibility requirements, that individual could be granted an award to pay for her childrens' expenses. {¶10} The Attorney General offered his assistance in guiding the applicant through the process of having an eligible applicant assume responsibility for the childrens' expenses. Whereupon the hearing concluded. {¶11} A judge of the Court of Claims found that where an applicant submitted a late request for reconsideration but filed a timely appeal from the Attorney General's final decision, the panel had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. In re Whitting, V2001-31473jud (8-20-02); In re Ware, V2001-31091jud (8-20-02). Furthermore, even if the Attorney General's writing was not entitled a final decision but addressed the issues contained in the request for reconsideration and states that the initial decision will not be modified, such writing will be considered a final decision for the purposes of an appeal. Whiting, Ware. {¶12} R.C. 2743.60(E)(1)(d) states:

a. "(E)(1) Except as otherwise provided in division (E)(2) of this section, the attorney general, a panel of commissioners, or a judge of the court of claims shall not make an award to a claimant if any of the following applies:
b. "(d) The claimant was convicted of a violation of section 2919.22 or 2919.25 of the Revised Code, or of any state law or municipal ordinance substantially similar to either section, within ten years prior to the criminally injurious conduct that gave rise to the claim or during the pendency of the claim."

______________

NECOL RUSSELL-WASHINGTON

Presiding Commissioner

______________

WILLIAM L. BYERS IV

Commissioner

______________

SUSAN G. SHERIDAN

Commissioner
ID #I:\Victim Decisions to SC Reporter\Panel Decisions\2012\June - Sept 2012\V2012-70114 Q.L.H..wpd\DRB-tad

A copy of the foregoing was personally served upon the Attorney General and sent by regular mail to Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney and to: Filed 6-27-12
Jr. Vol. 2283, Pgs. 93-97
Sent to S.C. reporter 10-18-12