2018 Ohio 2695
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- ECOT is an Ohio online community school that reported FTE enrollment numbers to ODE and received state funding based on those reports.
- ODE audited ECOT's reported FTE and concluded actual FTE was far lower, leading ODE to seek recovery (a "claw back") of $60,350,791 in overpayments.
- ECOT appealed ODE's determination to a hearing officer; the BOE adopted the hearing officer's decision and authorized recovery measures.
- ECOT pursued multiple parallel actions: (1) an R.C. 119.12 appeal to Franklin County Common Pleas; (2) an Open Meetings Act suit; and (3) a mandamus/prohibition petition to the Ohio Supreme Court (the Supreme Court dismissed the mandamus petition without opinion).
- The trial court dismissed ECOT's R.C. 119.12 appeal for lack of jurisdiction, construing R.C. 3314.08(K)(2)(d) ("any decision made by the board under this division is final") as precluding an appeal under R.C. 119.12.
- The court of appeals reversed and remanded, holding that BOE/ODE's decision was an "adjudication" in a "quasi-judicial" proceeding and that the word "final" in R.C. 3314.08(K)(2)(d) can be reconciled with R.C. 119.12 by treating the BOE decision as final within the agency but appealable to the common pleas court under R.C. 119.12.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ECOT can appeal BOE/ODE's adjudicative decision under R.C. 119.12 despite R.C. 3314.08(K)(2)(d) stating the BOE's decision is "final" | ECOT: "Final" means final within the agency (no further internal review); it does not preclude a statutory R.C. 119.12 appeal to common pleas. ECOT sought judicial review of the clawback. | BOE/ODE: The unqualified word "final" in R.C. 3314.08(K)(2)(d) precludes an appeal under R.C. 119.12; the specific statute controls over the general appeal statute. | The court reversed the trial court: BOE/ODE action was an adjudication in a quasi-judicial proceeding and ECOT may pursue an R.C. 119.12 appeal; "final" is read to mean final administratively but does not negate the R.C. 119.12 right of judicial review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pratts v. Hurley, 102 Ohio St.3d 81 (2004) (defining judicial subject-matter jurisdiction and limits on common pleas review of administrative actions)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (jurisdictional limits govern courts' power to adjudicate)
- Carney v. School Employees Retirement Sys. Bd., 39 Ohio App.3d 71 (1988) (construing statutory "final" language as precluding R.C. 119.12 review)
- State ex rel. Shumway v. State Teachers Retirement Bd., 114 Ohio App.3d 280 (1996) (same — "shall be final" language bars appeal; mandamus is proper remedy)
- Brookwood Presbyterian Church v. Ohio Dept. of Edn., 127 Ohio St.3d 469 (2010) (holding agency determinations labeled "final" may still be appealable where the statute also provides for R.C. 119.12 review)