Ormsby

27 Ct. Cl. 357
CourtWest Virginia Court of Claims
DecidedNovember 19, 2008
DocketCV-04-613A
StatusPublished

This text of 27 Ct. Cl. 357 (Ormsby) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering West Virginia Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ormsby, 27 Ct. Cl. 357 (W. Va. Super. Ct. 2008).

Opinion

ORDER

FORDHAM, JUDGE:

An application of the claimant, Maria L. Ormsby, on behalf of her son, Derion Corbett Gore,42 for an award under the West Virginia Crime Victims Compensation Act, was filed September 22, 2005. The report of the Claim Investigator, filed November 3, 2005, recommended that no award be granted, to which the claimant filed a Response in disagreement. An Order was issued on March 31, 2006, upholding the Investigator’s recommendation and denying the claim, in response to which the claimant’s request for hearing was filed April 17, 2006. This matter came on for hearing August 4, 2006, the claimant appearing by counsel Ellen F. Golden, and the State of West Virginia by counsel, Benjamin F. Yancey III, Assistant Attorney General.

On December 22, 2004, Derion Corbett Gore, the claimant’s thirteen-year-old son, was the victim of criminally injurious conduct in Charleston, Kanawha County. The victim witnessed an argument between the claimant and her husband, David G. Ormsby (the offender), and the offender threatened the claimant with physical and emotional violence.43 During the altercation, the offender threw a shoe at the victim. On January 30,2004, the claimant obtained a domestic violence protective order against the offender in the Family Court of Kanawha County.

The Claim Investigator recommended that no award be made because the claimant failed to respond to the Investigator’s request on September 29,2005, for copies of the victim’s counseling bills.44 On December 1, 2005, the claimant filed a Response [358]*358to the Claim Investigator’s Finding of Fact and Recommendation contending that she never received a request for counseling bills from the Crime Victims Compensation Fund.45 The claimant submitted with her Response a copy of the invoice for counseling services from the Domestic Violence Counseling Center in the amount of $2,900.00.

The Court, in its Order dated March 31, 2006, adopted the factual findings of the Claim Investigator and denied the claimant’s request for an award because the victim’s twenty-nine (29) counseling sessions were conducted by an unlicensed counselor. The claimant requested a hearing in response to the Court’s Order.

At the hearing of this matter on August 4, 2006, Elizabeth Crawford, Director and Counselor for the Domestic Violence Counseling Center, testified on behalf of the claimant. Ms. Crawford received her undergraduate degree in Medical Laboratory Technology and Chemistry and obtained a graduate degree in Community Health Promotion Education from West Virginia University. Since her graduate degree is not related to the field of counseling, the West Virginia Board of Examiners in Counseling has excluded her from sitting for the State examination to become a licensed professional counselor.

Ms. Crawford testified that the Domestic Violence Counseling Center is a tax-exempt organization that is located in a building provided by the New Covenant Missionary Baptist Church. Although the organization is open to members of the public in need of counseling services, the organization also reaches out to racial minorities who are victims of domestic violence. Ms. Crawford’s counseling fees are $100.00 per hour.

According to Ms. Crawford, the victim received counseling services from Mary Gray, an employee at the Domestic Violence Counseling Center. Ms. Crawford testified that Ms. Gray is not a licensed counselor and is not required to be licensed in West Virginia because she is a counselor working for a non-profit organization. At the time of the hearing, Ms. Gray was working on her graduate degree and had taken continuing education seminars in counseling children who have been abused.

Nancy Kemp, who was a victim of domestic violence, also testified in support of the claimant. Ms. Kemp received counseling services from Elizabeth Crawford, and stated that the counseling services that she received were very effective. Ms. Kemp filed a claim with the Crime Victims Compensation Fund approximately ten years ago, and the Fund provided compensation for the counseling services that she received.46

[359]*359The claimant also testified in support of the claim filed on her son’s behalf. She explained that there was a six-month delay between the time of the incident and the time that her son received counseling services because the victim had been living with his father. When the claimant left her abusive relationship, her son moved back in with her.

At that time, the claimant noticed that the victim was exhibiting disturbing behaviors. She testified that he was upset, belligerent, and his grades had plummeted. In addition to witnessing the claimant being abused by the offender, the victim was abused by his biological father. She realized that her son needed counseling services and sent him to a counselor at Shawnee Hills Counseling. Although the victim was receiving counseling services once a month, the claimant did not notice a change in his behavior.

When the victim started counseling sessions with Ms. Gray at the Domestic Violence Counseling Center, she noticed an improvement in his behavior. She stated that he attended counseling sessions more frequently because she was trying to prepare him for the upcoming school year. Thus, there were times where he had more than one counseling session per week.

When the victim began counseling sessions at the Domestic Violence Counseling Center, the claimant contends that she was not aware that the Crime Victims Compensation Fund required her son to seek counseling services from a licensed professional counselor. Therefore, the claimant asserts that she did not receive notice of this requirement prior to the time that the Domestic Violence Counseling Center provided her son with counseling services.

The issue before this Court on appeal is whether the claimant is entitled to recover counseling expenses from the Crime Victims Compensation Fund when the counseling services which the victim received were not provided by a licensed professional counselor. In the Applicant’s Brief in Support of Claim, the claimant contends that W.Va. Code §§ 14-2A-1, et seq. contains no language distinguishing between licensed and non-licensed counselors for the purposes of providing compensation under the Crime Victims Compensation Fund. In addition, the claimant asserts that the Court has paid unlicensed counselors prior to this claim. Furthermore, the claimant argues that non-profit organizations are exempt from the licensing requirements that apply to for-profit counselors under W.Va. Code § 30-31-3(4).47 Respondent avers that under W.Va. Code § 14-2A-5, “Any judge of the court of claims individually, or the court of claims en banc... shall have jurisdiction to approve awards of compensation arising from criminally injurious conduct... if satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence that the requirements for an award of compensation have been met.”

Respondent further asserts that Paragraph 2 of the Court’s Guidelines for Mental Health Counseling Services requires the Court to reimburse charges incurred for mental health counseling only if the cost is reasonable and care is provided by a physician, or a [360]*360psychologist, or a professional counselor.48

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

§ 14-2A-1
West Virginia § 14-2A-1
§ 14-2A-12
West Virginia § 14-2A-12(c)
§ 14-2A-3
West Virginia § 14-2A-3(f)(1)
§ 14-2A-5
West Virginia § 14-2A-5
§ 30-31-2
West Virginia § 30-31-2(5)
§ 30-31-3
West Virginia § 30-31-3(4)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
27 Ct. Cl. 357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ormsby-wvctcl-2008.