Capital Care Network of Toledo v. Dept. of Health (Slip Opinion)
106 N.E.3d 1209
Ohio2018Background
- Capital Care Network of Toledo (an ambulatory surgical facility providing abortions) operated under Ohio Adm.Code 3701-83-19(E), which requires a written transfer agreement with a hospital for emergency/urgent transfers.
- The University of Toledo terminated its transfer agreement with Capital Care effective July 31, 2013; Capital Care operated without any written transfer agreement from Aug 1, 2013 until Jan 20, 2014.
- On Jan 20, 2014 Capital Care executed a transfer agreement with University of Michigan (Ann Arbor), ~52 miles away; ODH asserted this did not satisfy the rule/statute requiring a nearby/local hospital (ODH applied a 30-minute transport standard).
- ODH revoked/refused to renew Capital Care’s license after administrative hearing; the hearing examiner and ODH director found noncompliance with the administrative rule and statutory provisions enacted in H.B. 59.
- Lucas County Common Pleas Court and Sixth District reversed/affirmed in favor of Capital Care on constitutional grounds (Single Subject Clause, undue burden under abortion precedent, and improper delegation); Ohio Supreme Court reviewed whether ODH’s revocation was supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Capital Care) | Defendant's Argument (ODH) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ODH's revocation was supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence that Capital Care failed to comply with Ohio Adm.Code 3701-83-19(E) | Capital Care: its Michigan agreement complied with the rule (emergency via 9-1-1 to local hospital; non-emergency via transport to Ann Arbor); it had no notice it needed a variance | ODH: rule requires a written transfer agreement with a nearby/local hospital (effectively a 30‑minute transport standard); Capital Care lacked any compliant agreement for five months and the Michigan agreement fails for emergencies | Held: Affirmed ODH — substantial evidence supports that Capital Care lacked a compliant written transfer agreement and the Michigan agreement did not meet the emergency transfer requirement. |
| Whether the court should decide constitutional challenges to R.C. 3702.303, 3702.304, and 3727.60 (Single Subject Clause, undue burden, delegation) | Capital Care: statutes violate single‑subject rule, unlawfully delegate licensing to private parties, and (in light of Whole Woman's Health) impose an undue burden on abortion access | ODH: constitutional questions unnecessary because administrative‑rule violation independently supports revocation; statutes are lawful and rationally related to patient safety | Held: Court declined to reach constitutional issues as unnecessary because ODH’s license revocation was lawful and supported by evidence. |
| Whether application of the administrative rule (vs. statute) to revoke license violated due process (notice/waiver opportunity) | Capital Care: ODH relied on statute at hearing; it would have sought a variance if it knew the Michigan agreement would be treated as noncompliant | ODH: Capital Care never sought a variance or waiver and consistently asserted its Michigan agreement complied with the rule | Held: Due‑process claim rejected — Capital Care had opportunity to seek a variance and never did; it never contested the applicability of the administrative rule. |
| Scope of judicial review for administrative license revocation under R.C. 119.12(M) | Capital Care: (implicit) court should reverse if revocation not supported by substantial evidence or not in accordance with law | ODH: defer to agency findings where supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence | Held: Standard applied — court must defer to agency fact findings when supported by requisite quantum of evidence; ODH met that standard here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (U.S. 1973) (recognition of constitutional right to choose abortion)
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (U.S. 1992) (articulates undue‑burden standard for abortion regulations)
- Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S.Ct. 2292 (U.S. 2016) (undue‑burden analysis requires balancing burdens on access against health benefits)
- Univ. of Cincinnati v. Conrad, 63 Ohio St.2d 108 (Ohio 1980) (administrative‑review standard: presence or absence of requisite quantum of evidence)
- Henry's Cafe, Inc. v. Bd. of Liquor Control, 170 Ohio St. 233 (Ohio 1960) (court must defer to administrative discretion when supported by law and evidence)
- Women's Med. Professional Corp. v. Baird, 438 F.3d 595 (6th Cir. 2006) (upholding Ohio transfer‑agreement regulation against delegation/undue‑burden challenge on narrow grounds)
- Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (U.S. 1989) (delegation doctrine and intelligible‑principle discussion)
- Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1936) (private nondelegation concerns)