Court Opinion

ID: 9903896
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-27 16:09:15.946501+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:45.414666
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Dingledine, 2023-Ohio-4256.]

                       IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                           THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                UNION COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,
                                                          CASE NO. 14-23-06
       PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

       v.

JEREMIAH LUZERN DINGLEDINE,                               OPINION

       DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

                  Appeal from Union County Common Pleas Court
                            Trial Court No. 21-CR-0212

                                      Judgment Affirmed

                          Date of Decision: November 27, 2023

APPEARANCES:

        Liz O. Jones for Appellant

        Raymond Kelly Hamilton for Appellee
Case No. 14-23-06

MILLER, P.J.

       {¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Jeremiah Dingledine (“Dingledine”), appeals the

December 19, 2022 order from the Union County Court of Common Pleas that he

make restitution to Derek Reisinger (“Reisinger”) in the amount of $77,947.90. For

the reasons that follow, we affirm.

       I.     FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

       {¶2} On October 12, 2021, Dingledine was indicted on one count of

felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1), a felony of the second degree.

The indictment arose from an incident in which Dingledine caused physical harm

to Reisinger. On April 22, 2022, Dingledine entered a guilty plea to an amended

count: aggravated assault in violation of R.C. 2903.12(A)(1), a felony of the fourth

degree.

       {¶3} On December 19, 2022, after Dingledine objected to the restitution

amount requested by the State, the trial court held a hearing regarding restitution.

Reisinger testified at the hearing. He said Dingledine injured him and, as a result

of his injuries, he underwent three surgeries. Reisinger did not have insurance to

pay for the medical treatment, and he started receiving bills. He submitted claims

to the Crime Victims Compensation Program, but those claims were denied.

Reisinger testified the medical bills total $77,947.90 and remain unpaid.

                                        -2-
Case No. 14-23-06

       {¶4} During the hearing, the trial court “order[ed] restitution be paid to the

victim, Derek Reisinger, in the * * * total amount of $77,947.90.” (Dec. 19, 2022

Tr. at 33). The trial court then issued an entry regarding restitution and sentencing.

That entry commands Dingledine to “make restitution to Derek Reisinger in the

amount of $77,947.90, payable to the Union County Clerk of Courts.” (Dec. 19,

2022 Journal Entry at 5). This appeal followed.

       II.    ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

       {¶5} Dingledine raises a single assignment of error for our review:

                               Assignment of Error

       The trial court committed an abuse of discretion in finding unpaid
       medical costs to be “economic loss suffered by the victim as a direct and
       proximate result of” the defendant’s convicted offense pursuant to R.C.
       2929.18(A)(1) and R.C. 2929.01(L).

       III.   DISCUSSION

       {¶6} Dingledine does not dispute that Reisinger received medical treatment

for injuries related to the offense for which Dingledine was convicted, the amount

of restitution, how that amount is comprised of bills for Reisinger’s medical

treatment ($77,783.65 from the Ohio State University Medical Revenue Group

Collections and $164.25 from the Memorial Hospital Physicians Services), and how

the amount is an unpaid obligation.       Dingledine’s appeal boils down to two

assertions: (1) an unpaid medical bill is not an “economic loss”; and (2) by ordering

                                         -3-
Case No. 14-23-06

payment of unpaid medical bills to a victim, the trial court is, de facto,

impermissibly ordering payment to a third party.1

                  A.        Standard of Review

         {¶7} We review a trial court’s order of restitution for an abuse of discretion.

State v. Yerkey, 7th Dist. Columbiana No. 19 CO 0044, 2020-Ohio-4822, aff’d 171

Ohio St.3d 367, 2022-Ohio-4298; State v. Perkins, 3d Dist. Marion No. 9-13-52,

2014-Ohio-2242, ¶ 10. An abuse of discretion “connotes more than an error of law

or of judgment; it implies that the court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or

unconscionable.” State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157, 404 N.E.2d 144 (1980).

“For a court of appeals to reach an abuse-of-discretion determination, the trial

court’s judgment must be so profoundly and wholly violative of fact and reason that

‘it evidences not the exercise of will but perversity of will, not the exercise of

judgment but defiance thereof, not the exercise of reason but rather of passion or

bias.’” State v. Weaver, 171 Ohio St.3d 429, 2022-Ohio-4371, ¶ 24, quoting State

v. Jenkins, 15 Ohio St.3d 164, 222, 473 N.E.2d 264 (1984).

                  B.        Applicable Law

         {¶8} The Ohio Constitution’s victims’ rights amendment, Article I, Section

10a (known as Marsy’s Law) provides victims with the right to full and timely

1
  In his briefing, Dingledine says that another issue presented for our review is whether the trial court abused
its discretion “in defining an alleged ‘impact on credit score’ as an ‘economic loss’ under R.C. 2929.18(A)(1)
and R.C. 2929.01(L).” (Appellant’s Brief at 1). However, the record does not show the trial court’s
restitution order was affected by any change to Reisinger’s credit score. The restitution amount matches the
amount of unpaid medical bills.

                                                      -4-
Case No. 14-23-06

restitution from the person who committed the criminal offense against them. State

v. Yerkey, 171 Ohio St.3d 367, 2022-Ohio-4298, ¶ 1, 10. “Restitution in Ohio is

limited to economic losses suffered by the victim as a direct and proximate result of

the commission of the offense.”         Id. at ¶ 1, 15, citing R.C. 2929.18(A)(1),

2929.28(A), and 2929.01(L). Specifically, R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) states, in relevant

part:

        * * * Financial sanctions that either are required to be or may be
        imposed pursuant to this section include, but are not limited to, the
        following: * * * Restitution by the offender to the victim of the
        offender’s criminal offense or the victim’s estate, in an amount based
        on the victim’s economic loss. In open court, the court shall order that
        full restitution be made to the victim, to the adult probation
        department that serves the county on behalf of the victim, to the clerk
        of courts, or to another agency designated by the court. * * * The
        amount the court orders as restitution shall not exceed the amount of
        the economic loss suffered by the victim as a direct and proximate
        result of the commission of the offense. * * * All restitution payments
        shall be credited against any recovery of economic loss in a civil
        action brought by the victim or the victim’s estate against the
        offender. * * *

R.C. 2929.18(A)(1).

        {¶9} “Economic loss” is defined as:

        any economic detriment suffered by a victim as a direct and proximate
        result of the commission of an offense and includes any loss of income
        due to lost time at work because of any injury caused to the victim,
        any property loss, medical cost, or funeral expense incurred as a result
        of the commission of the offense, and the cost of any accounting or
        auditing done to determine the extent of loss if the cost is incurred and
        payable by the victim.

R.C. 2929.01(L). Economic loss “does not include non-economic loss or any

punitive or exemplary damages.” Id.
                                          -5-
Case No. 14-23-06

              C.      Analysis

                      i.     Economic loss

       {¶10} Dingledine’s argument that Reisinger’s medical bills are not an

“economic loss” because they are unpaid is incorrect. As shown above, economic

loss includes a victim’s medical cost incurred as a result of the commission of the

offense. R.C. 2929.01(L). The term “incurred” does not mean “paid.” State ex rel.

Striker v. Cline, 130 Ohio St.3d 214, 2011-Ohio-5350, ¶ 23-24 (“[a]lthough the city

paid only $312 in attorney fees, the full amount of $3,503 in attorney fees was

incurred by the city”); Black’s Law Dictionary (11th Ed.2019) (defining “incur” as

“[t]o suffer or bring on oneself (a liability or expense)”).

       {¶11} Here, Reisinger incurred $77,947.90 in medical costs as a result of

Dingledine’s criminal offense.        Because Reisinger is legally obligated or

accountable to pay those costs, as demonstrated by his testimony and an exhibit

admitted at the restitution hearing, these costs constitute an economic loss to

Reisinger. Black’s Law Dictionary (11th Ed.2019) (defining “liability” as “[t]he

quality, state, or condition of being legally obligated or accountable”); Marshall v.

Cooper & Elliott, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104934, 2017-Ohio-4301, ¶ 31 (relying

on Black’s Law Dictionary to define “incur” and “liability,” and finding that legal

fees are incurred under a statute “when a party has a legal obligation to pay them or

otherwise becomes legally accountable for them, regardless of whether the fees have

been or will be paid”).

                                          -6-
Case No. 14-23-06

       {¶12} Additionally, numerous courts have upheld restitution for a victim’s

medical costs incurred as a direct and proximate result of the offense. E.g., State v.

Geldrich, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2015-11-103, 2016-Ohio-3400, ¶ 7, 9

(affirming restitution award for deceased victim’s medical bills to victim’s mother);

State v. Milenius, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100407, 2014-Ohio-3585, ¶ 12-13

(affirming restitution award for portion of victim’s medical bills directly resulting

from defendant’s attempted assault of victim). In Geldrich, the defendant-appellant

argued there was no “actual economic loss” because the medical bills had not been

paid and were now in collection. Geldrich at ¶ 9. The appellate court rejected this

argument on policy grounds, explaining the argument “essentially advocates for a

rule of law that permits only those individuals who can afford to pay a victim’s

medical costs and funeral expenses upfront to be entitled to recover those costs and

expenses through an order of restitution,” which “is inconsistent with the reasoning

behind ordering an offender to pay restitution as part of his or her sentence.” Id.

Dingledine’s argument that Reisinger’s medical bills do not qualify as “economic

loss” because they remain unpaid is without merit.

                     ii.     Third-party recipient of restitution

       {¶13} Also without merit is Dingledine’s second argument: by ordering

payment of unpaid medical bills to a crime victim, the trial court is de facto ordering

payment to a third-party as prohibited by R.C. 2929.18(A)(1). As shown above, the

law limits the parties to whom restitution can be made: “In open court, the court

                                         -7-
Case No. 14-23-06

shall order that full restitution be made to the victim, to the adult probation

department that serves the county on behalf of the victim, to the clerk of courts, or

to another agency designated by the court.” R.C. 2929.18(A)(1); see also State v.

Dull, 3d Dist. Seneca No. 13-12-33, 2013-Ohio-1395, ¶ 11 (“[p]ursuant to the plain

language of R.C. 2929.18(A)(1), restitution may not be ordered payable to a third

party”). Here, the trial court never ordered Dingledine to pay an impermissible third

party. Instead, the trial court acted in accordance with R.C. 2929.18(A)(1), ordering

Dingledine to make restitution to Reisinger in the amount of $77,947.90, payable to

the clerk of courts.

       {¶14} Finally, Dingledine argues that ordering payment to a victim who does

not intend to pay a bill is de facto ordering payment to a third party and giving the

victim an impermissible windfall. (Appellant’s Brief at 10). However, we need not

delve deeply into this argument because it is based on a faulty premise. Reisinger

never testified he did not intend to pay the bills. Rather, he testified that he felt he

should not be the one paying for the bills and, therefore, he had not yet paid the bills.

(Dec 19, 2022 Tr. at 17). Additionally, Reisinger testified, “I honestly don’t feel

like I should be the one paying them because I’m not the one who harmed myself,”

yet the creditors were asking him to pay for the treatment. (Id. at 16-17). Finally,

on cross-examination, in response to the question regarding whether he had “paid

on any of these medical bills as we stand here in court today,” Reisinger testified,

“I have not paid nothing on them because I don’t feel like I should be the one having

                                          -8-
Case No. 14-23-06

to pay them.” (Id. at 20). This testimony does not establish that, if Reisinger

received restitution in the amount of the bills, he would not pay the bills.

       IV.    CONCLUSION

       {¶15} For the foregoing reasons, Appellant’s assignment of error is

overruled. Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars

assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the Union County Court of

Common Pleas.

                                                                 Judgment Affirmed.

WALDICK and ZIMMERMAN, J.J., concur.

/hls

                                         -9-