In re Bolton , 2023 Ohio 3347 ( 2023 )

[Cite as In re Bolton, 2023-Ohio-3347.]
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO
IN RE: LEIGHTON D. BOLTON Case No. 2023-00115VI
LEIGHTON D. BOLTON Magistrate Daniel R. Borchert
Applicant DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE
{¶1} On October 11, 2022, applicant, Leighton D. Bolton, filed a compensation
application asserting he sustained injury as the result of an aggravated robbery on August
21, 2000. Applicant sought compensation for the medical expenses incurred.
{¶2} On November 3, 2022, the Attorney General (“AG”) issued a finding of fact
and decision denying applicant’s claim because it was filed outside of the three-year
period permitted by R.C. 2743.56(B) and 2743.60(A)(2)(a) effective March 3, 2022.
{¶3} On November 23, 2022, applicant filed a request for reconsideration which
states that he sustained injuries from the robbery on August 21, 2000.
{¶4} On January 23, 2023, the AG rendered a final decision finding no reason to
modify the original decision. On February 10, 2023, applicant filed a notice of appeal
from the AG’s final decision.
{¶5} Applicant filed a brief with the court asserting that applying R.C. 2743.56(B)
and R.C. 2743.60(A)(2)(a) retroactively violates his constitutional rights. Hence, a
hearing was held before this magistrate on May 11, 2023, at 10:00 a.m.
{¶6} Applicant, Leighton D. Bolton, did not appear. The State of Ohio was
represented by Senior Assistant Attorney General Yan Chen.
{¶7} The AG made a brief statement asserting that effective March 3, 2022, R.C.
2743.56(B) and 2743.60(A)(2)(a) do not allow awards to be granted if a victim files their
claim more than three years after the crime occurred. The AG stated that applicant filed
his claim twenty-two years after the crime occurred on October 11, 2022; thus, the three-
year time bar is applicable. The AG stated that applicant was almost twenty-four when
Case No. 2023-00115VI -2- DECISION
the crime occurred. Therefore, the AG requested that its January 23, 2023, final decision
be affirmed.
{¶8} R.C. 2743.56(B) states: “All applications for an award of reparations may
be filed at any time within three years after the occurrence of the criminally injurious
conduct, except as provided in divisions (A)(2)(b) to (d) of section 2743.60 of the Revised
Code.”
{¶9} R.C. 2743.60(A)(2) states, in pertinent part:
“(a) Except as provided in division (A)(2)(b), (c), or (d) of this section, the attorney
general or court of claims shall not make or order an award of reparations to a
claimant if the claims is based on criminally injurious conduct that occurred more
than three years before the claim was filed or if the claims was denied under the
law as it existed prior to the effective date of this amendment.
“(b) If the claimant was under twenty-one years of age at the time of the criminally
injurious conduct, the claim is not barred under division (A)(2)(a) of this section
until after the claimant’s twenty-fourth birthday.
“(c) If the claim is based on criminally injurious conduct that occurred prior to the
effective date of this section and was denied under the law as it existed prior to the
effective date of this amendment, the claim is not barred under division “(A)(2)(a)
of this section and the claimant is eligible to reapply for relief under this section
until more than three years have passed since the criminally injurious conduct that
gave rise to the claim.”
{¶10} The Ohio Constitution provides:
“The general assembly shall have no power to pass retroactive laws, or laws
impairing the obligation of contracts; but may, by general laws, authorize courts to
carry into effect, upon such terms as shall be just and equitable, the manifest
intention of parties, and officers, by curing omissions, defects, and errors, in
instruments and proceedings, arising out of their want of conformity with the laws
of this state.” Ohio Constitution, Article II, section 28.”
{¶11} However, the supreme court has held that this does not apply in certain
circumstances. “Rairden v. Holden, supra at paragraph two of the syllabus, held that: ‘A
statute purely remedial in its operation on pre-existing rights, obligations, duties and
Case No. 2023-00115VI -3- DECISION
interests, is not within the mischiefs against which [Section 28, Article II] * * * was intended
to guard, and is not, therefore, within a just construction of its terms.’ * * * Remedial laws
are those affecting only the remedy provided. These include laws which merely substitute
a new or more appropriate remedy for the enforcement of an existing right.” Van Fossen
v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 36 Ohio St.3d 100, 522 N.E.2d 489 (1988).
{¶12} Here, the amendments to R.C. 2743.56(B) and 2743.60(A)(2)(a) are of the
sort described in Van Fossen.
{¶13} Applicant filed his application on October 11, 2022. The law, currently in
effect and in effect at that time, does not allow for an award to be granted if the victim files
more than three years after the crime occurred. Applicant stated that the crime occurred
in 2000. Applicant did not provide any evidence that the exceptions to the three-year
period are applicable. Therefore, I recommend the Attorney General’s January 23, 2023,
decision be affirmed.
{¶14} 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).
DANIEL R. BORCHERT
Magistrate
A copy of the foregoing was personally served upon the Attorney General and sent
by regular mail to:
Filed 5/17/23
Sent to S.C. Reporter 9/20/23
Case No. 2023-00115VI -4- DECISION
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO
IN RE: LEIGHTON D. BOLTON Case No. 2023-00115VI
LEIGHTON D. BOLTON Judge Lisa L. Sadler
Applicant ORDER
{¶15} On May 11, 2023, a hearing was held in this matter before a Magistrate of
this court. On May 17, 2023, the Magistrate issued a Decision wherein he found that
applicant failed to timely submit his claim. Pursuant to R.C. 2743.56(B) and
2743.60(A)(2)(a), applicant’s claim occurred in 2000, but did not file until 2022. Therefore,
the Magistrate recommended the Attorney General’s Final Decision be affirmed.
{¶16} Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i) states, in part: “A party may file written objections to a
magistrate’s decision within fourteen days of the filing of the decision, whether or not the
court has adopted the decision during that fourteen-day period as permitted by Civ.R.
53(D)(4)(e)(i).” No objections were filed.
{¶17} Upon review of the claim file, and the Magistrate’s Decision, it is the Court’s
finding that the Magistrate was correct in his analysis of the issues and application of the
law. Accordingly, this court adopts the Magistrate’s Decision and recommendation as its
own.
{¶18} IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT
{¶19} The May 17, 2023 Decision of the Magistrate is ADOPTED;
{¶20} This claim is DENIED and judgment entered for state of Ohio;
{¶21} Costs assumed by the reparations fund.
LISA L. SADLER
Judge
A copy of the foregoing was personally served upon the Attorney General and sent
by regular mail to Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney and to:
Case No. 2023-00115VI -5- DECISION
Filed 6/7/23
Sent to S.C. Reporter 9/20/23