In re Williams

[Cite as In re Williams, 2023-Ohio-3339.]
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO
IN RE: ANTHONY E. WILLIAMS Case No. 2022-00600VI
ANTHONY E. WILLIAMS Magistrate Holly True Shaver
Applicant DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE
{¶1} On December 23, 2021, Anthony E. Williams (“applicant”), filed a
compensation application as a result of injuries he sustained during a motor vehicle
collision involving a fleeing suspect on December 5, 2020. The Attorney General (“AG”)
rendered a finding of fact and decision on April 21, 2022, denying applicant’s claim
because he failed to provide necessary documentation and authorization forms for the
AG to conduct an investigation. On May 20, 2022, applicant filed a request for
reconsideration of the AG’s decision stating that applicant had provided the
documentation. On July 11, 2022, the AG issued a final decision stating that applicant
still had not provided all the necessary documentation and authorizations. On August 11,
2022, applicant filed a notice of appeal stating that he had, in fact, provided all the
necessary documentation and authorizations.
{¶2} A hearing was held before this magistrate on July 18, 2023, at 11:00 a.m.
Applicant, his attorney, John B. Gibbons, and Assistant Attorney General (“AAG”) Megan
Hanke attended the hearing.
{¶3} AAG Hanke stated that the parties had discussed this matter prior to the
hearing and were in agreement that applicant would sign the necessary authorization
forms. The parties requested that the case be remanded to the AG for further
investigation.
{¶4} Therefore, I recommend that this case be remanded to the Attorney General
for further investigation and economic loss calculations.
{¶5} 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
Case No. 2022-00600VI -2- DECISION
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).
HOLLY TRUE SHAVER
Magistrate
Filed 07/19/2023
Sent to S.C. Reporter 9/20/23
Case No. 2022-00600VI -3- DECISION
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO
IN RE: ANTHONY E. WILLIAMS Case No. 2022-00600VI
ANTHONY E. WILLIAMS Judge Lisa L. Sadler
Applicant ORDER
{¶6} On July 18, 2023, a hearing was held in this matter before a Magistrate of
this court. On July 19, 2023, the Magistrate issued a Decision wherein she found that the
parties had discussed the matter prior to the hearing and were in agreement that applicant
would sign the necessary authorization forms. The magistrate recommended that the
case be remanded to the Attorney General for further investigation and economic loss
calculations.
{¶7} 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.
{¶8} Upon review of the claim file, and the Magistrate’s Decision, it is the Court’s
finding that the Magistrate was correct in her analysis of the issues and application of the
law. Accordingly, this court adopts the Magistrate’s Decision and recommendation as its
own.
{¶9} IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT
{¶10} The July 19, 2023 Decision of the Magistrate is ADOPTED;
{¶11} This claim is REMANDED and judgment entered for applicant;
{¶12} Costs assumed by the reparations fund.
Case No. 2022-00600VI -4- DECISION
LISA L. SADLER
Judge
Filed 08/03/2023
Sent to S.C. Reporter 9/20/23