[Cite as In re Gladwell-Caldwell, 2011-Ohio-4029.]

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: PAMELA J. GLADWELL-CALDWELL 

PAMELA J. GLADWELL-CALDWELL 

 Applicant 

 

 Case No. V2011-60344 

Commissioners: 

E. Joel Wesp, Presiding 

Karl C. Kerschner 

Necol Russell-Washington 

COMMISSIONER PANEL ORDER OF A THREE-

 {¶1}On August 30, 2010, applicant, Pamela Gladwell-Caldwell filed a 

compensation application as the result of an assault which occurred on August 3, 2010. 

On December 23, 2010, the Attorney General issued a finding of fact and decision 

which determined that the applicant met all the necessary jurisdictional requirements to 

qualify as a victim of criminally injurious conduct and she was granted an award of 

reparations in the amount of $276.75. Applicant’s claim for work loss was denied since 

she did not submit sufficient documentation to prove this loss. On January 18, 2011, 

applicant submitted a request for reconsideration. On March 18, 2011, the Attorney 

General rendered a Final Decision granting the applicant an additional award in the 

amount of $97.69, which represented mileage expenses incurred. Again, the 

applicant’s claim for work loss was denied. On April 5, 2011, the applicant filed a 

notice of appeal from the March 18, 2011 Final Decision of the Attorney General. 

Hence, a hearing was held before this panel of commissioners on July 6, 2011 at 10:35 

A.M. 

 {¶2}Assistant Attorney General David Lockshaw appeared on behalf of the 

state of Ohio. The applicant did not attend the hearing. 
Case No. V2011-60344 - 2 - ORDER
Case No. V2011-60344 - 3 - ORDER

 {¶3}The Attorney General stated that the sole issue in this case was whether 

the applicant had proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she incurred work 

loss. The Attorney General has received no supporting documentation or tax returns 

which support the applicant’s claim for work loss. The Attorney General noted that the 

applicant has filed two supplemental compensation applications since the Attorney 

General filed his brief on June 3, 2011. Whereupon, the hearing was concluded. 

 {¶4}R.C. 2743.60(G) in pertinent part states: 

"‘Work loss’ means loss of income from work that the injured person would 

have performed if the person had not been injured . . ." 

 {¶5}There are two elements necessary to prove work loss. First, one must 

prove work loss was sustained by showing an inability to work. Second, one must 

prove the monetary amount of work loss. Both elements must be proven by 

corroborating evidence. In re Berger (1994), 91 Ohio Misc. 2d 85. 

 {¶6}R.C. 2743.52 places the burden of proof on the applicant to satisfy the 

panel of 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. 

 {¶7}Black’s Law Dictionary Sixth Edition (1990) defines burden of proof as: “the 

necessity or duty of affirmatively proving a fact or facts in dispute on an issue raised 

between the parties in a cause. The obligation of a party to establish by evidence a 

requisite degree of belief concerning a fact in the mind of the trier of fact or the court.” 

 {¶8}Black’s Law Dictionary Sixth Edition (1990) defines preponderance of the 

evidence as: “evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence 

which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the 

fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.” 
Case No. V2011-60344 - 4 - ORDER

 {¶9}From review of the case file and upon full and careful consideration given to 

the Attorney General’s statement at the hearing, we find the applicant has been unable 

to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she incurred work loss as a result of 

the criminally injurious conduct of August 3, 2010. The applicant has presented no 

supporting documents to substantiate her allegation that she sustained work loss. 

Accordingly, the Attorney General’s March 18, 2011 decision with respect to the issue of 

work loss is affirmed. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT 

 {¶10}1) The March 18, 2011 decision of the Attorney General is AFFIRMED; 

 {¶11}2) The applicant’s claim for work loss is DENIED; 

 {¶12}3) This order is entered without prejudice to the applicant’s right to file a 

supplemental compensation application, within five years of this order, pursuant to R.C. 

2743.68; 
Case No. V2011-60344 - 5 - ORDER

 {¶13}4) Costs are assumed by the court of claims victims of crime fund.

 _______________________________________ 

 E. JOEL WESP 

 Presiding Commissioner

 _______________________________________ 

 KARL C. KERSCHNER 

 Commissioner

 _______________________________________ 

 NECOL RUSSELL-WASHINGTON 

 Commissioner 

ID #I:\VICTIMS\2011\60344\V2011-60344.wpd\DRB-tad 

 A copy of the foregoing was personally served upon the Attorney General and 

sent by regular mail to Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney and to: 

Filed 8-5-11 

Jr. Vol. 2279, Pgs. 194-197 

Sent to S.C. Reporter 8-15-11