In re Kidd

DANIEL R. BORCHERT Magistrate Judge

Sent to S.C. Reporter 12/21/22

DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE

DANIEL R. BORCHERT Magistrate Judge

{¶1} On January 31, 2021, Franki Kidd, applicant, filed a compensation application as a result of an assault which occurred on January 24, 2021. Applicant sought compensation for medical and counseling expenses, replacement services, work loss, and crime scene cleanup expenses.

{¶2} On June 1, 2021, the Attorney General issued a Finding of Fact and Decision awarding applicant $331.45 in compensation for her work loss and parking expenses.

{¶3} On July 1, 2021, applicant filed a supplemental compensation application. Applicant sought compensation for additional work loss and parking expenses.

{¶4} On October 28, 2021, the Attorney General filed a Finding of Fact and Decision concerning the supplemental compensation application denying applicant's request for parking expenses because was already recouped from the Cincinnati OVC. The Attorney General denied applicant's request for work loss because it had not received supporting documentation for that claim.

{¶5} On November 29, 2021, applicant filed a request for reconsideration for work loss on June 10 and 11, 2021 and parking for June 10, 2021, when she was a witness in a criminal proceeding relating the January 24 assault.

{¶6} On January 21, 2022, the Attorney General rendered a Final Decision affirming its initial denial. On February 14, 2022, applicant filed a notice of appeal from the Final Decision of the Attorney General.

{¶7} Hence, a hearing was held before this magistrate on May 11, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. Applicant was informed of the hearing date and time, and after waiting 10 (ten) minutes she did not appear, as the hearing was held. Assistant Attorney General Candice C. Suffren represented the state of Ohio.

{¶8} The Attorney General presented three exhibits, an email exchange between an economic loss investigator for the attorney general and the applicant, a time sheet from the applicant's employer, Hunter International Recruiting for applicant for the week of June 7, 2021, and an email from applicant's employer to an economic loss investigator for the attorney general.

{¶9} The Attorney General stated that in the email exchange between the investigator and the applicant, the applicant admitted that her parking expenses were covered by the Cincinnati OVC. Further, the email from applicant's employer stated that applicant only works four-hour days, and the time sheet showed that applicant worked four hours on both June 10 and 11, 2021.

{¶10} From review of the case file and careful consideration of the arguments presented, I find that applicant's claim must be denied. Applicant failed to prove work loss. Applicant's parking expenses were covered by Cincinnati OVC. Therefore, I recommend that the Attorney General's Final Decision of January 21, 2022, be affirmed.

{¶11} 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).