[Cite as In re Rowles, 2011-Ohio-4314.]

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: JILL R. ROWLES 

JILL R. ROWLES 

 Applicant 

 

 Case No. V2010-50647 

Commissioners: 

Susan G. Sheridan, Presiding 

William L. Byers IV 

E. Joel Wesp 

COMMISSIONER PANEL ORDER OF A THREE-

 {1}On August 21, 2009, the applicant, Jill Rowles, filed a compensation 

application in Claim No. V2010-50647, wherein she asserted she was a victim of crime 

as the result of the murder of her husband, Fred Rowles. On December 1, 2009, the 

Attorney General issued a finding of fact and decision denying the applicant’s claim 

pursuant to the holding in In re Clapacs (1989), 58 Ohio Misc. 2d 1. The Attorney 

General’s investigation revealed that the applicant did not have direct awareness of the 

crime scene nor did she come upon the scene shortly after its immediate aftermath. 

Therefore, the Attorney General determined she did not qualify to receive an award of 

reparations. On January 11, 2010, the applicant submitted a request for 

reconsideration. On March 10, 2010, the Attorney General rendered a Final Decision 

finding no reason to modify its initial decision and granting the applicant’s voluntary 

request to withdraw her claim. On July 22, 2010, the applicant filed a notice of appeal 

from the March 10, 2010 Final Decision of the Attorney General. 

 {2}On March 19, 2010, the applicant filed a compensation application which 

was assigned Claim No. V2011-60077. This claim concerned the applicant being 
Case No. V2010-50647 - 2 - ORDER

menaced and being harassed by telephone. On January 13, 2011, the Attorney 

General issued a finding of fact and decision finding that the applicant was a victim of 

criminally injurious conduct as the result of menacing which occurred on and after May 

25, 2009. The Attorney General granted the applicant an award of reparations in the 

amount of $298.86, of which $75.97 represented security system monitoring costs for 

the period May 3, through July 28, 2010 and $222.89 represented mileage expenses 

incurred for the period July 13, 2009 through June 30, 2010. However, the Attorney 

General denied applicant’s claim for reimbursement of medical expenses since they 

were reimbursable from Medicaid, a readily available collateral source. The applicant’s 

claim for work loss was denied since the applicant did not prove this loss by a 

preponderance of the evidence. Finally, the security system costs to protect the 

applicant’s business while she were out-of-state was not a compensable loss. 

 {3}On January 20, 2011, the applicant filed a request for reconsideration and on 

January 25, 2011, the applicant filed a notice of appeal from the Attorney General’s 

finding of fact and decision of January 13, 2011. On April 1, 2011, the Attorney 

General rendered a Final Decision. The applicant was granted an additional award of 

reparations in the amount of $9,042.58, of which $285.60 represented reimbursement 

for having her door locks changed; $36.30 for mileage expenses from January 27, 

through March 5, 2009; $379.80 for reimbursement of treatment received from St. 

Francis Hospital & Health Centers on February 4, 2010; $8,276.88 for work loss 

incurred for the period September 1, 2009 through September 10, 2010; and $64.00 

paid directly to Tri-State Security System Inc. for a monitoring expense for January, 

February, and March 2009. The Attorney General determined expenses incurred at 

Community Hospitals of Indiana, the Adult & Child Center, Emergency Physicians of 

Indianapolis, St. Francis Hospital & Health Center, and Rural Metro of Indiana are 

currently being addressed in Claim No. V2009-66159. Finally, the applicant’s request 

for reimbursement of a re-bill fee is not a compensable expense under the program. 
Case No. V2010-50647 - 3 - ORDER

 {4}Hearings in Claim Nos. V2010-50647 and V2011-60077 were set to be 

heard before this panel of commissioners on April 20, 2011. On April 12, 2011, the 

parties filed a joint motion to consolidate and remand claims based upon newly 

discovered evidence that the applicant, is in fact, a victim in her own right. 

 {5}The parties contend that the witnessing of the murder scene of the 

applicant’s husband Fred Rowles and the subsequent menacing and telephone 

harassment are intertwined to the point that they are inseparable. Accordingly, the 

parties request that Claim No. V2010-50647 and Claim No. V2011-60077 be 

consolidated under Claim No. V2011-60077. 

 {6}The parties also agree that since the economic loss incurred by the applicant 

due both to her witnessing the crime scene and to the menacing events are impossible 

to separate, the consolidated claim should be limited by the maximum award referenced 

in R.C. 2743.60(I), fifty thousand dollars. 

 {7}Finally, the parties request that this consolidated claim be remanded to the 

Attorney General’s office for calculation of future economic loss. 

 {8}From review of the claim files, careful consideration of the joint motion, and a 

status conference held with the parties on April 14, 2011, we find the joint motion should 

be granted. These claims present an enigma for the panel. While the events in 

question happened at different times and places, they relate to the murder of the 

applicant’s husband. Based upon the compelling arguments of the parties we find the 

mental health counseling the applicant is receiving is so related to the totality of the 

events in question that the expenses in the two claims cannot be rationally separated. 

Accordingly, the consolidation of Claim Nos. V2010-50647 and V2011-60077 under 

Claim No. V2011-60077 is appropriate and the joint motion is granted. 

 {9}Next we find that the Attorney General’s request to re-evaluate the 

applicant’s status as a victim in her own right with respect to viewing the murder scene 

of her husband to be warranted. The Attorney General related that he contacted the 

Portsmouth Police Department and was informed that they accompanied the applicant 
Case No. V2010-50647 - 4 - ORDER

to the crime scene. She witnessed the scene just as it appeared at the time of the 

discovery of the decedent’s body. This event coupled with the psychological injury the 

applicant experienced after her husband’s death convinced the Attorney General that 

the applicant qualifies as an indirect victim of criminally injurious conduct as outlined in 

In re Clapacs (1989), 59 Ohio Misc. 2d 1. This panel concurs with the Attorney 

General’s decision. 

 {10}Finally, based on the statements of the Attorney General, applicant’s 

counsel, and the medical records contained in the case file it is clear that the applicant’s 

psychiatric condition is attributable to both her witnessing of the crime scene and her 

victimization as the result of the menacing. It is impossible to attribute the applicant’s 

ongoing psychiatric treatment as to one or the other of the traumatic events. 

Accordingly, this panel will accept the recommendation of the parties to limit the 

maximum award under consolidated Case No. V2011-60077 to $50,000.00 

 {11}Accordingly, the April 12, 2011 joint motion of the parties is granted. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT 

 {12}1) The March 10, 2010 decision of the Attorney General in Case No. 

V2010-50647 is REVERSED and judgment is rendered in favor of the applicant; 

 {13}2) The parties’ joint motion of April 12, 2011 is GRANTED; 

 {14}3) Claim No. V2010-50647 and V2011-60077 are consolidated under 

Claim No. V2011-60077; 

 {15}4) Consolidated Claim No. V2011-60077 is subject to the limitations 

imposed by R.C. 2743.60(I); 

 {16}5) Consolidated Claim No. V2011-60077 is remanded to the Attorney 

General for total economic loss calculations and decision; 

 {17}6) 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; 

 {18}7) Costs are assumed by the court of claims victims of crime fund.
Case No. V2010-50647 - 5 - ORDER

 _______________________________________ 

 SUSAN G. SHERIDAN 

 Presiding Commissioner

 _______________________________________ 

 WILLIAM L. BYERS IV 

 Commissioner

 _______________________________________ 

 E. JOEL WESP 

 Commissioner 

ID #I:\Victim Decisions to SC Reporter\Panel Decisions\2011\May 27-June 9\V2010-50647 Rowles.wpd\DRB-tad 

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

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

Filed 5-27-11 

Jr. Vol. 2278, Pgs. 186-190 

Sent to S.C. Reporter 8-26-11