2014 Ohio 5235
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Autumn Care Center, a skilled nursing home, was surveyed by Ohio Department of Health employees on Jan. 3, 2013 and received citations, two of which it contested (lukewarm cereal; resident dispute).
- Autumn filed a declaratory-judgment complaint (Jan. 29, 2014) against individual state employees alleging violations of the Ohio Constitution's equal protection (Art. I, §2) and due course of law (Art. I, §16) clauses.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6); the trial court dismissed, finding the constitutional provisions are not self-executing and Autumn failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
- Autumn appealed, arguing (1) the Ohio constitutional clauses are self-executing (or at least justiciable via the Declaratory Judgment Act) and (2) it was not required to exhaust administrative remedies before filing in common pleas court.
- The appellate court reviewed the Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal de novo, examined standing/justiciability, and considered the self-execution doctrine for constitutional provisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ohio Const. Art. I §§2 and 16 are self-executing and create an independent private cause of action | Autumn: §§2 and 16 are actionable; declaratory relief under R.C. 2721.03 may be used to vindicate constitutional rights regardless of self-execution | State: §§2 and 16 are general, non-self-executing declarations that do not create private causes of action (no Ohio analogue to 42 U.S.C. §1983) | Court: §§2 and 16 are not self-executing; they do not create independent causes of action and Autumn failed to state a claim |
| Whether Autumn had to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief | Autumn: Declaratory-judgment action is appropriate under R.C. 2721.03 and exhaustion requirement is irrelevant given its constitutional claim | State: Regulatory scheme provides administrative remedies; exhaustion is required before judicial relief | Court: Because dismissal for failure to state a claim was dispositive, exhaustion discussion was moot; record showed no pending administrative action and Autumn failed to plead a justiciable injury |
Key Cases Cited
- Greeley v. Miami Valley Maintenance Contractors, Inc., 49 Ohio St.3d 228 (standard for de novo review of Civ.R. 12(B)(6))
- Byrd v. Faber, 57 Ohio St.3d 56 (pleading inferences must be drawn for nonmoving party on motion to dismiss)
- State ex rel. Russell v. Bliss, 156 Ohio St. 147 (self-executing vs. non-self-executing doctrine explained)
- State v. Williams, 88 Ohio St.3d 513 (analysis whether constitutional language supplies methodology for judicial enforcement)
- Autumn Health Care of Zanesville, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services, 959 F.Supp.2d 1044 (district-court discussion that exhaustion of administrative remedies is prerequisite to civil action)
- Cathedral Rock of N. College Hill, Inc. v. Shalala, 223 F.3d 254 (Sixth Circuit: exhaustion requirement for administrative-reviewable regulatory claims)