[Cite as In re Hoffman, 2012-Ohio-4680.]

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: CONNIE M. HOFFMAN 

CONNIE M. HOFFMAN 

 Applicant 

 

Case No. V2011-60174 

Commissioners: 

Necol Russell-Washington, Presiding 

Karl C. Kerschner 

Susan G. Sheridan 

ORDER OF A THREECOMMISSIONER PANEL

{¶1} On May 26, 2010, the applicant, Connie Hoffman, filed a compensation application 

as the result of a series of criminal offenses which occurred between December 5, and 

8, 2009. On August 27, 2010, the Attorney General issued a finding of fact and 

decision denying the applicant’s claim for an award of reparations since a toxicology 

test conducted at Akron General Medical Center at the time of the criminally injurious 

conduct revealed the applicant tested positive for opiates. Accordingly, the applicant’s 

claim was denied pursuant to R.C. 2743.60(E)(1)(e). 

{¶2} On November 18, 2010, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration. 

The applicant submitted a patient history report from Rite Aid pharmacy which revealed 

the applicant had a long history of taking prescription medication which contained 

opiates. Furthermore, the applicant asserts involuntary drugging by the offender 

allowed him to perpetrate the crimes against her. Accordingly, she asserts the 

Attorney General should re-evaluate its initial decision. 
Case No. V2011-60174 - 2 - ORDER

{¶3} On February 4, 2011, the Attorney General rendered a Final Decision determining 

that the applicant’s claim should not be denied pursuant to R.C. 2743.60(E)(1)(e), that 

the applicant has met the necessary jurisdictional requirements to receive an award of 

reparations, and that the applicant should be granted an award in the amount of $68.36, 

which represents a moving expense for the rental of a U-Haul trailer. The applicant’s 

claim for work loss was denied since the applicant failed to present any medical 

documentation to support this claim. Finally, the applicant’s claim for additional moving 

expenses was denied since the applicant failed to submit supporting documentation to 

prove she incurred this expense. 

{¶4} On March 4, 2011, the applicant filed a notice of appeal from the February 4, 2011 

Final Decision of the Attorney General. Hence, a hearing was held before this panel of 

commissioners on October 5, 2011 at 10:30 A.M. The applicant, Connie Hoffman, and 

her attorney, Kevin Sanislo, appeared while Assistant Attorney General Heidi James 

represented the state of Ohio. 

{¶5} The applicant made an opening statement asserting that she will prove her claims 

for work loss and additional moving expenses. The Attorney General acknowledged 

that the applicant was a victim of criminally injurious conduct and had been 

compensated for partial moving expenses. However, the Attorney General argued that 

the applicant has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she incurred 

additional moving expenses. Furthermore, the moving expense sought, approximately 

112 man hours expended for the move, was not reasonable. Finally, the applicant 

submitted no medical documentation to support her claim for work loss. Accordingly, 

the Attorney General contended the Final Decision should be affirmed. 

{¶6} Connie Hoffman was called to testify. She briefly related her recollections of the 

assault and the injuries sustained. Due to her injuries she suffered both physical and 

emotional pain, so debilitating that she was unable to leave her residence for months. 

Her only contacts with the outside world, besides her family, were with Deputy Kelly 

Kuhn of the Summit County Sheriff’s Department and Heather Gunnoe, a Community 
Case No. V2011-60174 - 3 - ORDER

Victim Advocate with the Summit County Victim Assistance Program. Both these 

individuals were required to meet with the applicant at her residence since she was 

fearful to leave it. 

{¶7} The applicant testified that prior to her assault she was employed as an adjunct 

professor at Stark State College of Technology. However, due to the brutal assault she 

suffered she was neither "physically, psychologically, or emotionally" able to perform 

her duties as an adjunct professor for the time period January 11, 2010 through May 28, 

2010. Ms. Hoffman related that her son contacted Marc Hostetler, Department 

Chair-Social Services, notifying him via e-mail of his mother’s incapacitation and 

inability to work. Letters from Mr. Hostetler dated June 24, 2010 and August 9, 2011, 

were shown to the applicant. These letters indicated that the applicant would have 

taught three classes for the period January 11, 2010 through May 28, 2010 and been 

paid $5,592.00, if she had not been injured. Mr. Hostetler’s letters also reveal that he 

was forced to find a replacement to teach these classes in her stead. The applicant 

explained that at that point her teaching contract was "destroyed" and she would not 

have been able to return to her teaching position any time during the semester since 

"her classes were already contracted out to other faculty." Ms. Hoffman testified that 

she resumed her position as an adjunct professor in the fall semester of 2010. 

{¶8} The applicant was then questioned concerning the moving expenses she incurred. 

The applicant related that with the exception of a doctor’s appointment in February 2010 

and attending Victims of Crime Week activities in April of the same year she did not 

venture outside her home. The applicant related that the offender began showing up at 

her door step and she was fearful about what could happen. She decided for her own 

personal safety that she needed to move. The applicant was shown a letter dated July 

16, 2010 from Deputy Kelly Kuhn, Summit County Sheriff’s Department. The letter in 

pertinent part stated: 
Case No. V2011-60174 - 4 - ORDER

a. "I am writing on behalf of Connie Hoffman who was involved in a 

violent crime, in which I investigated. For her safety, it was necessary for 

her to move from her residence." 

{¶9} The applicant acknowledged based on the encouragement of Deputy Kuhn, 

Advocate Gunnoe, and family members, she moved to her current residence a secured 

apartment complex in Cuyahoga Falls. 

{¶10} The applicant related that the move took three weekends and was accomplished 

by Donald Miller and personnel from his company Bumble Bee Stripping. The 

applicant was shown an invoice dated June 5, 2010-June 28, 2010 in the amount of 

$1,635.09, for labor, moving, packing, setup and U-Haul rental and the affidavit of 

Donald Miller, Jr. dated June 29, 2011 stating the cost for all labor, parking, moving and 

personal belongings for the move on June 5-6, June 9, and June 27-28, 2010 required 

112 man hours at $12.00 per hour for a total of $1,344.00. Applicant confirmed that 

she was aware of these expenses but has been unable to pay them. 

{¶11} The Attorney General cross-examined the witness. The applicant acknowledged 

that she is currently receiving Social Security Disability as the result of the physical 

injuries sustained in a prior profession: heavy highway construction. She currently 

receives $832.00 per month. 

{¶12} The applicant conceded that she had been seeing Dr. Steinberger, an ear, nose 

and throat specialist for 20 years prior to the criminal incident, and that Dr. Steinberger 

did not have sufficient evidence to write her off work. The Attorney General presented 

State’s Exhibit A, a medical information report dated June 11, 2010 which revealed in 

the area of the report captioned Prognosis Disability "N/A to my eval." The applicant 

agreed that Dr. Steinberger did not write her off work but related that Dr. Steinberger’s 

office expertise is not in the area of rape, violence, or psychological injury. 

{¶13} Upon questioning concerning the applicant’s moving expenses, she stated she 

had secured a new apartment and was expecting to be moved with the help of the local 

Victims Assistance Program. However, due to budgetary constraint this help was not 
Case No. V2011-60174 - 5 - ORDER

available. Due to her desperation and Donald Miller’s offer to help she allowed him to 

conduct the move. Mr. Miller, who runs a floor stripping company, did not have large 

enough vehicles to accommodate her belongings so a U-Haul had to be rented. 

U-Hauls had to be rented on three separate occasions and the Attorney General has 

granted an award for the cost of one rental vehicle. 

{¶14} The applicant testified that she is legally obligated to pay the moving expense. 

On the day of the move, Mr. Miller and his crew did all the packing and moving without 

any help from the applicant. The applicant believes the affidavit submitted by Donald 

Miller, Jr. is an accurate reflection of the work performed during the move. 

{¶15} Finally, the applicant stated she did not see a mental health counselor after the 

occurrence of the criminal incident. Whereupon, the applicant’s testimony was 

concluded. 

{¶16} Heather Gunnoe, a victim advocate for the Victim Assistance Program in Summit 

County, was called to testify. She met the applicant when she received a referral from 

a counselor with the program in January 2010. Ms. Gunnoe, although not a licensed 

counselor, performed a crisis intervention at the applicant’s residence. She met with 

the applicant approximately once per week for a period of almost a year. She 

described the applicant as being bruised, in pain, having difficulty ambulating, and 

experiencing back pain as well as being scared and fearful. In Ms. Gunnoe’s opinion 

the applicant was in no condition, either physically or emotionally to work until after 

March 2010. 

{¶17} The Attorney General did not cross-examine the witness and Ms. Gunnoe’s 

testimony was concluded. 

{¶18} In closing the applicant argued that a case for work loss has been established for 

the loss of earning at Stark State Technical College. Furthermore, the evidence proved 

that she should be reimbursed for the moving expenses, in the amount of $1,344.00 for 

labor expenses, $293.81 for U-Haul rental expenses less the $68.38 already granted by 
Case No. V2011-60174 - 6 - ORDER

the Attorney General, plus a $10.00 fuel charge. The applicant requests an award be 

granted in this amount. 

{¶19} The Attorney General contended that the applicant incurred moving expenses in 

the amount of $68.38 and the necessity for the move was supported by the letter from 

Deputy Kelly Kuhn. However, the applicant failed to prove that the remaining moving 

expenses were reasonably incurred. The applicant presented no medical provider who 

could verify that the applicant incurred work loss as the result of the injuries she 

sustained at the time of the criminally injurious conduct. Therefore, the applicant failed 

to sustain her burden of proof, and accordingly, her claim should be denied. 

Whereupon, the hearing was concluded. 

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

a. "(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 hearing aids; dentures, retainers, and other dental appliances; canes, 

walkers, and other mobility tools; and eyeglasses and other corrective 

lenses." 

{¶21} Moving expenses can constitute an allowable expense. See In re Miller, 

V2006-20780tc (3-2-07) affirmed jud (6-25-07). 

{¶22} R.C. 2743.51(G) in pertinent part states: 

a. "(G) ‘Work loss’ means loss of income from work that the injured 

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

{¶23} There are two elements necessary to proven 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 prove by corroborating 

evidence. In re Berger (1994), 91 Ohio Misc. 2d 85. 
Case No. V2011-60174 - 7 - ORDER

{¶24} Applicant has the burden to prove that the applicant secured a specific job 

commencing at a known date after the criminally injurious conduct or was in the process 

of negotiating a job the applicant was likely to get. In re Wilson (1989), 61 Ohio Misc. 

2d 369. 

{¶25} Applicant has the burden to establish that there was work the applicant would 

have performed had the applicant not been injured. In re Russell, V80-47882jud 

(4-19-84). 

{¶26} 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.” 

{¶27} 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.” 

{¶28} The credibility of witnesses and the weight attributable to their testimony are 

primarily matters for the trier of fact. State v. DeHass (1967), 10 Ohio St. 2d 230, 39 

O.O. 2d 366, 227 N.E. 2d 212, paragraph one of the syllabus. The court is free to 

believe or disbelieve, all or any part of each witness’s testimony. State v. Antill (1964), 

176 Ohio St. 61, 26 O.O. 2d 366, 197 N.E. 2d 548. 

{¶29} From review of the case file and with full and careful review of all testimony 

presented and the arguments made by the parties of the hearing, we find the applicant 

has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she incurred additional moving 

expenses and work loss. 

{¶30} The Attorney General determined in the Final Decision of February 4, 2011 that 

moving from the residence of the crime scene to a new location at a secured apartment 

was necessary and causally related to the criminally injurious conduct. The Attorney 

General conceded that point at the hearing noting that Deputy Kelly Kuhn’s letter was 
Case No. V2011-60174 - 8 - ORDER

sufficient to prove that the move was causally related to her injuries and related to her 

remedial care and treatment. The only issue which this panel needs to consider is 

whether the additional moving expenses were reasonable. We find the testimony of 

the applicant to be credible with respect to the reason for the move and her inability to 

assist with the move. Furthermore, the Attorney General presented no evidence which 

refuted that the move occurred as described in the testimony of the applicant or the 

affidavit of Donald Miller, Jr. The Attorney General also presented no evidence, other 

than a mere assertion, that the cost of the move was unreasonable. When an 

applicant establishes a prima facie case that a cost was incurred in relation to an 

additional allowable expense and this case is supported by credible testimonial and 

affidavit evidence, the burden of proof shifts to the Attorney General to rebut or refute 

the reasonableness of the amount of the expense. The Attorney General has failed to 

sustain his burden in this case. Accordingly, the applicant’s claim for additional moving 

expenses is granted. 

{¶31} Applicant’s claim for work loss is also granted. Based upon the medical records 

in the case file and the credible testimony of the applicant and Heather Gunnoe, the 

victim advocate, we find the applicant was not physically or psychologically able to start 

her job as an adjunct professor at Stark State Technical College on January 11, 2010. 

The letters from Marc Hostetler reveal that the applicant had a job on January 11, 2010, 

the amount of the work loss, and the fact that due to her inability to work, others were 

hired in her place foreclosing the applicant’s opportunity to be gainfully employed for the 

semester. Therefore, the applicant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence 

that she incurred work loss for the period of January 11, 2010 through May 28, 2010. 

{¶32} The applicant has incurred moving expenses in the amount of $1,579.43 and 

gross work loss in the amount of $5,592.00. This claim shall be remanded to the 

Attorney General for calculation of net work loss and payment of the moving expenses 

and net work loss. Accordingly, the Attorney General’s decision of February 4, 2011 is 

modified. 
Case No. V2011-60174 - 9 - ORDER

{¶33} IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT 

{¶34} The Attorney General’s State’s Exhibit A is admitted into evidence; 

{¶35} The February 4, 2011 decision of the Attorney General is MODIFIED and 

judgment is rendered in favor of the applicant in accordance with the above mentioned 

calculations; 

{¶36} This claim is remanded to the Attorney General for calculation and decision; 

{¶37} 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; 

{¶38} Costs are assumed by the court of claims victims of crime fund.

 _______________________________________ 

 NECOL RUSSELL-WASHINGTON 

 Presiding Commissioner

 _______________________________________ 

 KARL C. KERSCHNER 

 Commissioner

 _______________________________________ 

 SUSAN G. SHERIDAN 

 Commissioner 

ID #I:\Victim Decisions to SC Reporter\Panel Decisions\2012\V2011-60174 Hoffman.wpd\DRB-tad 

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

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

Filed 2-28-12 

Jr. vol. 2282, Pgs. 85-94 

Sent to S.C. reporter 10-9-12