Community Hosps. & Wellness Ctrs. v. State
2020 Ohio 401
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Appellees (hospitals and professional associations) sued the State and Ohio Department of Medicaid challenging R.C. 5162.80 (Ohio’s Price Transparency Law), which had been inserted into Am.Sub.H.B. No. 52 (a Bureau of Workers’ Compensation budget/operating bill). They alleged violations of the Ohio Constitution’s one-subject rule and three-considerations (three-readings) rule, plus due-process claims; plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief.
- Parties agreed to an agreed temporary restraining order preventing implementation of R.C. 5162.80 while the suit proceeded.
- State Representative James L. Butler Jr., sponsor/author of the Price Transparency Law, moved to intervene (as of right and permissively), alleging he had a protectable interest and that the Attorney General had conflicts that impaired defense; the trial court denied intervention.
- The trial court granted appellees’ motion for partial summary judgment, holding that the addition of R.C. 5162.80 to H.B. 52 violated the one-subject rule and the three-considerations rule, severed R.C. 5162.80, and enjoined its enforcement.
- Butler and the State appealed; the Sixth District consolidated the appeals and affirmed the trial court: intervention was properly denied and R.C. 5162.80 was severed for violating both the one-subject and three-readings requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Motion to intervene as of right (Civ.R. 24(A)(2)) | Butler lacked timeliness and a legally protectable interest; intervention would prejudice the parties | Butler (intervenor) claimed timely filing, authorial stake in the statute, and that AG conflicted with defending the law | Denied — motion untimely and Butler had no legally protectable interest as an individual legislator to defend the enacted statute; trial court abused discretion finding otherwise but correct to deny intervention overall |
| 2) Permissive intervention (Civ.R. 24(B)) | Intervention unnecessary and would delay; Butler adds nothing new | Butler argued common legal questions (and could pursue mandamus) and would not prejudice parties | Denied — would unduly delay and would not add genuine issues of material fact; Butler may pursue a separate mandamus action instead |
| 3) One-subject rule (Art. II, §15(D)) — addition of R.C. 5162.80 to H.B. 52 | R.C. 5162.80 is unrelated to BWC budget/operations and its inclusion was an unnatural combination indicative of logrolling | State argued a broad single subject (healthcare funding/provision) and that the provision was germane to controlling healthcare costs funded by BWC | R.C. 5162.80 severed — court found a disunity of subjects and that the best explanation was logrolling; primary subject remained BWC budget/operations |
| 4) Three-considerations (three-readings) rule (Art. II, §15(C)) — whether the amendment vitally altered the bill requiring new readings | Plaintiffs argued the insertion of R.C. 5162.80 vitally altered the bill and no journaled three readings occurred for the altered bill | State argued the addition did not vitally alter H.B. 52 and judicial involvement would be overreaching | Violation found — Senate’s insertion of R.C. 5162.80 vitally altered the bill; the amended bill did not receive the required three considerations in each house, so R.C. 5162.80 was unconstitutional and severed |
Key Cases Cited
- Rumpke Sanit. Landfill, Inc. v. State, 128 Ohio St.3d 41 (2010) (describing one-subject rule purpose and standing principles)
- Sheward, State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward, 86 Ohio St.3d 451 (1999) (one-subject analysis and severance principles)
- In re Nowak, 104 Ohio St.3d 466 (2004) (standards for invalidating enactments under one-subject rule)
- Hoover v. Bd. of Cty. Commrs., Franklin Cty., 19 Ohio St.3d 1 (1985) (three-considerations and vital alteration doctrine)
- Cleveland v. State, 157 Ohio St.3d 330 (2019) (presumption of constitutionality and de novo review of statute’s constitutionality)
- Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, 116 Ohio St.3d 468 (2007) (statutes enjoy a strong presumption of constitutionality)
- State ex rel. Ohio Gen. Assembly v. Brunner, 114 Ohio St.3d 386 (2007) (legislators may have standing in certain mandamus contexts but not for this type of legislative-process constitutional defense)
- Geiger v. Geiger, 117 Ohio St. 451 (1927) (test for severance of unconstitutional provisions)