[Cite as In re A.M.N., 2010-Ohio-6717.]

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: A. M. N. 

ANDREW T. NEWLAND 

 Applicant 

 

 Case No. V2009-40803 

Commissioners: 

Elizabeth Luper Schuster, Presiding 

Gregory P. Barwell 

Randi M. Ostry 

COMMISSIONER PANEL ORDER OF A THREE-

 {1}On May 29, 2009, the applicant, Andrew Newland, filed a compensation 

application on behalf of his minor child A.M.N. On September 11, 2009, the Attorney 

General issued a finding of fact and decision determining that A.M.N. qualified as a 

victim of criminally injurious conduct and the applicant met the necessary jurisdictional 

requirements to qualify to receive an award of reparations. The applicant was granted 

an award in the amount of $82.71, which represented mileage expenses. The 

applicant’s claim for reimbursement of medical expenses was denied based on the fact 

they have been or could have been recouped from a readily available collateral source, 

Medicaid. The applicant’s claim for work loss was denied based on his failure to supply 

necessary documentation. Finally, the applicant’s request to build a privacy fence was 

denied since such cost was not compensable under the program. 

 {2}On September 14, 2009, the applicant submitted a request for 

reconsideration. On November 13, 2009, the Attorney General rendered a Final 

Decision finding no reason to modify his initial decision. On November 19, 2009, the 

applicant filed a notice of appeal from the November 13, 2009 Final Decision of the 
Case No. V2009-40803 - 2 - ORDER

Attorney General. Hence, a hearing was held before this panel of commissioners on 

January 20, 2010 at 11:10 A.M. 

 {3}The applicant and the applicant’s attorney, Michael Falleur, appeared, while 

Assistant Attorney General Lyndsay Nash represented the state of Ohio. 

 {4}The applicant asserts the sole issue on appeal is whether the construction of 

a privacy fence meets the definition of an allowable expense as contained in R.C. 

2743.51(F)(1). A six-foot high fence would separate the victim’s home from the 

offender’s home and a four foot section of fence would attach to the other neighbor’s 

existing fence. The applicant asserts this fence would meet the requirements outlined 

in a letter from Melanie James, Center for Child and Family Advocacy, Nationwide 

Children’s Hospital dated June 29, 2009. In that letter, Ms. James felt a fence “would 

be therapeutically beneficial by reducing the physical and visual contact” with the 

offender. 

 {5}The Attorney General’s position was that the applicant has not sustained his 

burden to prove that the fence is an allowable expense pursuant to R.C. 2743.51(F)(1). 

 {6}The applicant, Andrew Newland, was called to testify. Mr. Newland related 

the background surrounding the sexual abuse of his minor son A.M.N. by a teenage 

neighbor boy. The applicant briefly related the subsequent criminal prosecution of the 

offender, which is currently pending. 

 {7}The applicant was presented with Applicant’s Exhibit 1, an aerial photograph 

of the neighborhood. The applicant indicated the location of his home, the offender’s 

home, and the location of the home of another victim of the offender. The backyard of 

the applicant’s home abuts the backyard of the offender’s home. Where the backyards 

adjoin, the applicant wishes to erect a six-foot section of fence. The applicant asserts 

that his son, the victim, would feel safer if there was no visual contact with the offender. 

The four-foot section of fencing would separate his property from other neighbors and 

the fence would be of a style to conform to other neighborhood fencing. Exhibit 2 was 
Case No. V2009-40803 - 3 - ORDER

then presented. Exhibit 2 revealed the style of the four-foot fencing. Exhibit 3 

depicted the back of the applicant’s home showing that there are no windows. A 

four-foot fence would be erected between the applicant’s property and the property of 

another neighbor boy who had also been a victim of the same offender. Exhibits 4 and 

5 were then presented with different views of a deck and the applicant related where the 

placement of the six and four-foot sections of fencing would be erected. 

 {8}The applicant related he received an estimate from the Trudeau’s Fencing 

Company to erect sections of six foot and four foot fencing as outlined in his testimony. 

The applicant related he signed an agreement for remedial treatment and care with the 

Trudeau Company for the building of the fence in the amount of $6,421.00. 

 {9}Upon cross-examination, the applicant conceded that the victim’s bedroom 

faces the offender’s home and is located on the second floor. Even with a six-foot 

privacy fence the victim would be able to view the offender’s residence. The applicant 

admitted that the offender could see around the sections of fencing that were four feet in 

height. Whereupon, the testimony of the applicant was concluded. 

 {10}In closing the applicant believes the panel should rely on the holding in In 

re Kaiser, V90-56922tc (10-25-91). A fence would reinforce the counseling the victim 

has received and provide a valuable therapeutic safe guard. The applicant asserts the 

fence will assist with the remedial healing and treatment of A.M.N. Upon questioning 

by the panel of commissioners, the applicant conceded that the outcome of the criminal 

case against the offender could be a determining factor in whether the fence would be 

necessary. 

 {11}Attorney General contends that the building of the fence is not reasonable, 

since the majority of the fence is four feet which will not prevent the offender from 

viewing the victim. Additionally, the applicant testified the victim’s second-floor 

bedroom overlooks the offender’s backyard so even a six-foot fence would not prevent 

visual contact. The Attorney General questioned how much protection a fence would 

offer the victim. The Attorney General distinguished the holding in In re Kaiser from the 
Case No. V2009-40803 - 4 - ORDER

case at bar, since in Kaiser security bars protected the victim from another break-in of 

her home, while the four-foot section of fence would not provide the same protection. 

The Attorney General also addressed the issue of the juvenile court hearing concerning 

the offender. If the offender was removed from his home a fence would not be 

necessary. 

 {12}Both parties agreed that a decision in this matter should be stayed until the 

outcome of the juvenile hearing against the offender is completed. Accordingly, the 

panel of commissioners’ stayed the claim until the juvenile hearing is concluded. 

Whereupon, the hearing ended. 

 {13}On February 17, 2010, a status conference was held concerning the 

juvenile matter. Due to the fact that the juvenile proceedings were still pending, the 

parties made a joint motion for continuance. On February 25, 2010, this panel issued 

an order granting the parties’ joint motion and setting another status conference for 

March 17, 2010. 

 {14}On March 17, 2010, a status conference was held. The Attorney General 

related the offender was adjudicated delinquent for two counts of sexual imposition. 

Sentencing would not occur until the end of April and it was unclear whether the 

offender would remain in his home. The Attorney General confirmed that there was a 

“no contact order” in place. The applicant presented an estimate by the Trudeau 

Fence Company for a six-foot fence encompassing the property at the cost of 

$16,686.50. On April 7, 2010, the Attorney General filed a motion to schedule an 

additional status conference. On April 30, 2010, this panel issued an order scheduling 

a status conference for June 16, 2010. 

 {15}On June 16, 2010, a status conference was held between the parties and 

the panel of commissioners. At that time it was revealed that although the offender 

was adjudged delinquent he would remain in his home. On June 16, 2010, the 

applicant supplied fence estimates from the Trudeau’s Fence Company. The estimate 
Case No. V2009-40803 - 5 - ORDER

presented four options 1) a six-foot fence for the area in question in the amount of 

$16,686.50; 2) “deduct the neighbor’s 115' of 6' fence + stain + removal of old fence 

DEDUCT $4,600.00 = $12,086.50 shadow box and stain”; 3) “6' + 4' DE Solid Board 

with 2 gates + stained one coat $10,750.00 (This was not including the 115' of 

neighbor’s fence)”; and 4) “6' + 4' White Vinyl privacy with 2 gates $15,000.00 or 

$16,500.00 for two (This was not including the 115' of neighbor’s fence).” 

 {16}R.C. 2743.51(F)(1) in pertinent part states: 

“(F)(1) ‘Allowable expense’ means reasonable charges incurred for reasonably 

needed products, services, and accommodations, including those for medical 

care, rehabilitation, rehabilitative occupational training, and other remedial 

treatment and care and including replacement costs for eyeglasses and other 

corrective lenses.” 

 {17}From review of the case file and with full and careful consideration given to 

the testimony of the applicant and arguments of counsel, we find the privacy fence is an 

allowable expense within the meaning of R.C. 2743.51(F)(1). We are convinced by the 

testimony of the applicant and the letters submitted by Melanie James, Center for Child 

and Family Advocacy, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, and Lourdes Hill of the same 

organization, that the erection of a privacy fence would assist in A.M.N.’s remedial 

treatment and care. 

 {18}Ms. James in pertinent part stated: 

 “It is also clinically helpful if physical and visual contact, with his offender, be 

reduced, and due to the current close proximity of A.M.N. and his offender’s yard with 

limited barriers, this can be triggering for him. These triggers make the progress in 

treatment very difficult and could increase a child’s behaviors and symptoms. A fence 

for the Newland home would be therapeutically beneficial by reducing the physical and 

visual contact A.M.N. has with his identified perpetrator and could assist in his 
Case No. V2009-40803 - 6 - ORDER

caregivers being able to appropriately manage his symptoms and move towards 

healing.” 

 {19}Ms. Hill in pertinet part stated: 

 “It is also clinically helpful if physical and visual contact with his offender be 

reduced as this can impact treatment outcome. Specifically, the current close proximity 

of A.M.N. and his offender’s yard with limited barriers can be triggering for A.M.N. 

 {20}“Furthermore, these triggers make treatment progress very difficult and 

could increase a child’s behaviors and symptoms. A fence for the Newland home 

would be therapeutically beneficial by reducing the physical and visual contact A.M.N. 

has with his identified perpetrator and could assist in his caregivers being able to 

appropriately manage his symptoms and move towards healing.” 

 {21}We find the case at bar analogous to In re Kaiser. While the Kaiser case 

involved the installation of security bars on Kendra Kaiser’s home after a home 

invasion, the panel decision emphasized the security bars were “reasonably necessary 

for her rehabilitative treatment and care.” While the bars provided for physical security, 

the main purpose of their installation was to provide “emotional well-being.” 

 {22}In the case at bar, we believe that the victim should be able to use his 

backyard without the physical fear and emotional trauma associated with visually 

confronting his offender. Therefore, we find the privacy fence constitutes an allowable 

expense as defined by R.C. 2743.51(F)(1). The six-foot section of fence provides a 

buffer between their backyards, yet the four-foot section of fence blends into the 

surrounding neighborhood allowing A.M.N. to maintain contact with his neighborhood 

friends. A six-foot fence surrounding his entire property would convey the impression 

that the victim was being enclosed from the surrounding neighborhood; in a sense, that 

he was being confined for the actions committed against him. 

 {23}We believe the best option, taking into consideration the cost involved and 

the integrity of the Crime Victim’s Compensation Fund, would be option 3 provided by 

the Trudeau’s Fencing Company. That option is the “6' + 4' De Solid Board with 2 
Case No. V2009-40803 - 7 - ORDER

gates + stained one coat $10,750.00 (This is not including the 115' of neighbor’s 

fence).” 

 {24}Therefore, the November 13, 2009 Final Decision of the Attorney General 

is reversed. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT 

 {25}1) Applicant’s Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are admitted into evidence; 

 {26}2) The November 13, 2009 decision of the Attorney General is 

REVERSED and judgment is rendered in favor of the applicant in the amount of 

$10,750.00; 

 {27}3) This claim is remanded to the Attorney General for payment and 

monitoring to ensure that an agreement is entered into between the applicant and 

Trudeau Fence Company and a fence as envisioned by this order is completed; 

 {28}4) 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; 

 {29}5) Costs are assumed by the court of claims victims of crime fund.

 _______________________________________ 

 ELIZABETH LUPER SCHUSTER 

 Presiding Commissioner

 _______________________________________ 

 GREGORY P. BARWELL 

 Commissioner
Case No. V2009-40803 - 8 - ORDER

 _______________________________________ 

 RANDI M. OSTRY 

 Commissioner 

ID #I:\Victim Decisions to SC Reporter\Panel Decisions\2010\Sept - Nov 2010\V2009-40803.wpd\DRB-tad 

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

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

Filed 11-19-10 

Jr. Vol. 2277, Pgs. 85-92 

Sent to S.C. Reporter 10-11-11