In re Langwasser

[Cite as In re Langwasser, 2011-Ohio-7084.]
Court of Claims of Ohio
Victims of Crime Division
The Ohio Judicial Center
65 South Front Street, Fourth Floor
Columbus, OH 43215
614.387.9860 or 1.800.824.8263
www.cco.state.oh.us
IN RE: CHRISTIAN M. LANGWASSER
CHRISTIAN M. LANGWASSER
Applicant
Case No. V2009-40790
Judge Clark B. Weaver Sr.
DECISION
{¶1} This matter came on to be considered upon the applicant’s appeal from the
January 27, 2011, order issued by the panel of commissioners. The panel’s
determination affirmed the final decision of the Attorney General, which had
granted applicant awards representing medical, mileage, and evidence
replacement expenses, but denied applicant’s claim for work loss.
{¶2} R.C. 2743.52(A) places the burden of proof on an applicant to satisfy the Court of
Claims Commissioners that the requirements for an award have been met by a
preponderance of the evidence. In re Rios (1983), 8 Ohio Misc.2d 4, 8 OBR 63,
455 N.E.2d 1374. The panel found, upon review of the evidence, that applicant
failed to present sufficient evidence to meet his burden regarding work loss.
{¶3} The standard for reviewing claims that are appealed to the court is established by
R.C. 2743.61(C), which provides in pertinent part: “If upon hearing and
consideration of the record and evidence, the judge decides that the decision of
the panel of commissioners is unreasonable or unlawful, the judge shall reverse
and vacate the decision or modify it and enter judgment on the claim. The
decision of the judge of the court of claims is final.”
{¶4} Applicant suffered injuries as a result of criminally injurious conduct which
prevented him from participating in the University of Kentucky ROTC program.
Case No. V2009-40790 - 2 - ORDER
According to evidence in the claim file, applicant had been awarded an ROTC
scholarship and he would have received an annual $3,000 stipend for
participating in the program. Applicant asserts that the loss of the stipend
constitutes work loss as defined in R.C. 2743.51(G).
{¶5} The two-commissioner panel determined that “the stipend was an integral part of
the scholarship, no different than an athletic scholarship which has already been
found to be a non-compensable expense” pursuant to the holding in In re Gilford,
V92-85377sc (11-30-93). Specifically, the majority of the panel found that
applicant failed to provide sufficient information to show either “what specific job
duties, hours of employment, or performance requirements were necessary” to
receive the stipend or “the relationship between the scholarship and the stipend”
so as to prove that he is entitled to an award for work loss.
{¶6} The sole issue before the court is whether the loss of the stipend meets the
statutory definition of work loss as set forth in R.C. 2743.51(G), which states:
“‘Work loss’ means loss of income from work that the injured person would have
performed if the person had not been injured . . .”
{¶7} In his dissent, Commissioner Pierre-Louis noted that the court has previously
granted an award representing work loss to a victim of crime who was injured
after having been accepted into a military program which offered educational and
financial benefits. In re Dimon, Jr., V83-61532tc (11-2-84). He also observed
that Black’s Law Dictionary defines stipend as “a salary or other regular periodic
payment.”
{¶8} The court finds that the evidence in the claim file, including the October 27, 2008
letter signed by Bradley D. Harrington, Lieutenant Colonel, USAR, shows that
applicant was eligible to receive the ROTC scholarship and stipend. According
to Lieutenant Colonel Harrington, the stipend was awarded in addition to full
tuition and fees, room and board, and an annual book allowance. Therefore,
the court finds that the stipend constituted a benefit that was to be paid in
Case No. V2009-40790 - 3 - ORDER
addition to the scholarship and that applicant has satisfied his burden of proving
that the stipend represented compensation for duties that applicant would have
been required to perform in the ROTC program. Accordingly, the court
concludes that the loss of such compensation represents work loss pursuant to
R.C. 2743.51(G).
{¶9} Upon review of the file in this matter, the court finds that applicant has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that he was entitled to an additional award of
reparations.
{¶10} Based on the evidence and R.C. 2743.61, it is the court’s opinion that the
decision of the panel of commissioners was unreasonable. Therefore, the
decision of the two-commissioner panel shall be reversed.
ORDER
{¶11} Upon review of the evidence, the court finds the order of the panel of
commissioners must be reversed.
{¶12} IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
{¶13} The order of January 27, 2011, (Jr. Vol. 2277, Page 179) is reversed and
judgment is rendered in favor of applicant;
{¶14} This claim is REMANDED to the Attorney General for economic loss calculation
and decision;
{¶15} Costs assumed by the reparations fund.
CLARK B. WEAVER SR.
Judge
AMR/mdw
A copy of the foregoing was personally served upon the Attorney
General and sent by regular mail to Delaware County Prosecuting
Attorney and to:
Case No. V2009-40790 - 4 - ORDER
Filed 6-8-11
Jr. Vol. 2279, Pg. 8
Sent to S.C. Reporter 7-19-13