 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Bolt5/20/2005
ORDER OF A THREE-COMMISSIONER PANEL
{ } The applicant filed a reparations application seeking reimbursement of expenses incurred with respect to a June 7, 2003 incident. The applicant, a Columbus police officer, contends that he was a victim of criminally injurious conduct because he was injured while attempting to remove an intoxicated and disorderly person, Kenneth White, from an unsafe area. On September 8, 2004, the Attorney General denied the claim pursuant to R.C. 2743.52(A) contending that the applicant failed to qualify as a victim of criminally injurious conduct since Mr. White's conduct posed no substantial threat of personal injury or death to the applicant. On October 7, 2004, the applicant filed a request for reconsideration. On December 6, 2004, the Attorney General denied the applicant's claim once again. On December 27, 2004, the applicant filed a notice of appeal to the Attorney General's December 6, 2004 Final Decision. Hence, this matter came to be heard before this panel of three commissioners on March 23, 2005 at 11:10 A.M.
{ } The applicant, applicant's counsel, and an Assistant Attorney General attended the hearing and presented testimony and oral argument for this panel's consideration. Officer Bolt testified that he was dispatched to the intersection of I-70 and Livingston Avenue, a heavily traveled intersection in Columbus, concerning a homeless man laying in the street. Officer Bolt stated that when he arrived at the scene Kenneth White had been safely removed from the street by the Fire Department. Officer Bolt explained that in the past Mr. White had never caused any major problems but is a constant nuisance in the neighborhood, since he starts fires, begs for money, and regularly becomes intoxicated. Officer Bolt stated that he had the option of either arresting Mr. White or transporting him to an engagement center for treatment. Officer Bolt explained that he had decided to have Mr. White transported to the engagement center, but had to wait for more appropriate transportation. Officer Bolt stated that Mr. White had been sitting on the sidewalk, however he kept attempting to stand ignoring all orders to remain seated until transportation arrived. Officer Bolt testified that Mr. White staggered and when he attempted to place Mr. White into his squad car he injured his back. Lastly, Officer Bolt stated that as a result of Mr. White's conduct he lost six months of special duty pay.
{ } Applicant's counsel contended that the claim should be allowed based on the testimony presented. Counsel argued that Mr. White's disorderly conduct and public intoxication posed a substantial threat of personal injury or death to the applicant. Counsel noted that Mr. White had previously been found laying in the middle of the road and was removed by the Fire Department. Counsel also argued that Mr. White's failure to cooperate with Officer Bolt's commands to remain seated and not to return to the street posed a danger to Mr. White, Officer Bolt and motorists, which is noted by Officer Bolt's injury.
{ } The Assistant Attorney General maintained that the applicant's claim should be denied since he was not faced with any threat of personal injury or death. The Assistant Attorney General contended that since Mr. White was on the curb and was not in the street when the injury occurred that the applicant does not qualify as a victim of criminally injurious conduct. The Assistant Attorney General asserted that the panel should look at the underlying conduct in order to determine whether Officer Bolt qualifies as a victim of criminally injurious conduct. The Assistant Attorney General argued that the underlying conduct, Mr. White's intoxication, did not pose a subst
Page 1 2 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|