 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Bassett10/28/2005
OPINION OF A THREE-COMMISSIONER PANEL
{ } The applicant, an Akron police officer, Russell Bassett ("Officer Bassett" or "applicant"), filed a reparations application seeking reimbursement of expenses incurred regarding a July 20, 2004 incident. Officer Bassett alleges he was injured while executing a narcotics warrant for suspect, Nathaniel Johnson ("Mr. Johnson" or "suspect"). On December 6, 2004, the Attorney General denied the claim under R.C. 2743.52(A) contending that the applicant failed to qualify as a victim of criminally injurious conduct. On December 26, 2004, the applicant filed a request for reconsideration. On February 22, 2005, the Attorney General denied the applicant's claim once again. On March 7, 2005, the applicant filed a notice of appeal to the Attorney General's February 22, 2005 Final Decision. Hence, this panel heard the matter on June 22, 2005 at 10:30 A.M.
{ } The applicant, applicant's counsel, and an Assistant Attorney General attended the hearing and presented testimony and oral argument. Officer Bassett testified that on July 20, 2004 he was assigned to the day shift and was dispatched to assist on a narcotics warrant.
Officer Bassett stated that approximately 8-10 police officers were on the scene, however he and his supervisor were the only uniformed officers present. Officer Bassett indicated that he, as the "lead man," was the first person to gain entry into the suspect's apartment complex by kicking in the entry door. Officer Bassett explained that upon entering the complex, he saw the suspect open his apartment door and attempt to retreat. Officer Bassett then pursued Mr. Johnson into his apartment. Officer Bassett stated that a struggle ensued before the suspect was finally subdued and handcuffed. Officer Bassett explained that he injured his right ankle while breaking in the door and wrestling with the subject. Officer Bassett noted that he sought medical attention at the hospital for his injury and was advised to remain off work for three days. He further stated that as a result of this injury, he incurred private duty work loss for which he seeks reimbursement.
{ } Applicant's counsel stated, based upon the testimony presented, that the applicant's claim for work loss should be allowed. Counsel argued that Officer Bassett clearly sustained injury while attempting to effectuate a search warrant involving Mr. Johnson. Counsel asserted that the applicant was a victim of criminally injurious conduct, since Mr. Johnson's conduct of both drug trafficking and resisting arrest posed a substantial threat of personal injury or death to Officer Bassett.
{ } The Assistant Attorney General maintained that the applicant failed to prove that he qualifies as a victim of criminally injurious conduct. The Assistant Attorney General asserted that Mr. Johnson never engaged in any conduct that posed a substantial threat of personal injury or death to Officer Bassett. The Assistant Attorney General argued that the proximate cause of the applicant's injury was kicking in the apartment complex door and not scuffling with Mr. Johnson, as the applicant contends. This distinction, the Assistant Attorney General contends, makes all the difference since the applicant's ankle injury occurred prior to any contact with the suspect. Ergo, the suspect never engaged in any conduct that posed a substantial threat of personal injury or death to Officer Bassett, thereby precluding the applicant's recovery.
{ } Revised Code 2743.51(C)(1) states in part that:
(C) 'Criminally injurious conduct' means one of the following:
(1) For the purposes of any person described in division (A)(1) of this section, any cond
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|