Cobb v. Ohio Dept. of Edn.
2016 Ohio 7396
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Dr. Aries Cobb owned/operated Edu-at-Tech, an educational clinic for children with learning disabilities, and held multiple Ohio teaching licenses.
- On July 23, 2013, two minors (an 18-year-old and interns) supervised ~11 clinic students at a nearby public park; a five-year-old special-needs child ("Student One") was left behind and found later; police/EMS and child services were notified and a neglect finding issued.
- ODE charged Cobb under R.C. 3319.31(B)(1) (immoral act, incompetence, negligence, or conduct unbecoming) and held an administrative hearing; hearing officer recommended permanent revocation and permanent ineligibility to reapply.
- The State Board adopted the recommendation and permanently revoked Cobb’s pre-K and kindergarten licenses and barred future licensure; Cobb appealed to Cuyahoga Common Pleas Court, which affirmed on the record without an additional evidentiary hearing.
- On appeal to the Eighth District, Cobb argued procedural due process violations (failure to follow ODE disciplinary guidelines, summary affirmance), statutory vagueness/unconstitutional delegation, and that her written objections to the hearing officer’s report were not properly filed or considered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ODE and hearing officer failed to follow disciplinary guidelines/violated due process | Cobb: ODE did not properly consider aggravating/mitigating factors and therefore discipline (permanent revocation) was improper | ODE: Hearing officer considered applicable Ohio Adm.Code factors and Licensure Code; revocation falls within statutory/regulatory discretion | Court: ODE appropriately applied statute and rules; no procedural due process violation; affirmed revocation |
| Whether common pleas court’s summary affirmance (no hearing) violated R.C. 119.12 | Cobb: Court’s perfunctory ruling denied meaningful review/hearing | ODE: R.C. 119.12 hearing may be limited to review of the record; court may exercise discretion | Court: Reviewing the record satisfied statutory hearing requirement; summary affirmance not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether R.C. 3319.31 is unconstitutionally vague or an unlawful delegation | Cobb: Statute vague and improperly delegates rulemaking/penalty authority to Board | ODE: Statute plus administrative rules and Licensure Code give adequate guidance; Board’s rulemaking authority is proper | Court: Statute and implementing rules provide fair notice and permissible delegation; statute constitutional |
| Whether Cobb’s objections to the hearing officer’s report were improperly excluded | Cobb: Objections mailed to ODE counsel, not filed with agency; due process breached | ODE: Filing rules require documents be received/time-stamped by department; objections were not properly filed/received | Court: Filing rules are clear; objections were not shown to be timely received by ODE; arguments were nonetheless presented to trial and appellate courts, so no prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (1993) (appellate standard: abuse-of-discretion review of common pleas’ affirmation of administrative orders and plenary review for questions of law)
- Ohio Motor Vehicle Dealers Bd. v. Central Cadillac Co., 14 Ohio St.3d 64 (1984) (R.C. 119.12 requires only a hearing; the court may limit the hearing to review of the record)
- Norwood v. Horney, 110 Ohio St.3d 353 (2006) (vagueness analysis: statute must give fair notice to a person of ordinary intelligence)
- GMC v. Joe O’Brien Chevrolet, 118 Ohio App.3d 470 (1997) (court need not make separate findings of fact and conclusions of law when no additional evidence is heard by common pleas)