Dragonfly Academy v. Ohio Dept. of Edn.
2017 Ohio 7897
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Dragonfly Academy, a registered private provider under Ohio's Autism Scholarship Program, sued the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) for unpaid scholarship payments for services to two students (M.S. and D.B.) for school years 2011–2012 and 2014–2015.
- Dragonfly sought payment for occupational therapy (OT) and speech-language therapy (SLT) (and asserted other educational services were provided), submitting an affidavit from its director Miranda Abrams and several exhibits from service providers.
- ODE moved for summary judgment, arguing Dragonfly failed to produce adequate documentation of compensable services and that consultative/evaluation services are not compensable under the statute and administrative rules.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to ODE, finding documentation inadequate for both years; Dragonfly appealed claiming genuine issues of material fact existed.
- The appellate court reviewed de novo and concluded Dragonfly failed to present sufficient evidence for OT and for the 2014–2015 invoice, but found the SLT notes from therapist Kathy Deering (exhibit A-4) contained sufficient detail to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether compensable SLT services were provided on the dates listed.
- Result: appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part; remanded to determine whether Deering provided compensable SLT services as noted.
Issues
| Issue | Dragonfly's Argument | ODE's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of documentation for 2011–2012 SLT | Deering's notes and Abrams' affidavit show direct SLT services to M.S. and D.B. | Documentation is minimal/partially undated; cannot verify compensable services | Exhibit A-4 (Deering's notes) had sufficient detail to raise a genuine issue of fact; summary judgment reversed as to those SLT entries |
| Sufficiency of documentation for 2011–2012 OT | Demes' consultation form and memo show OT services occurred | Forms are consultative, undated or non-specific and do not show direct services to students | OT documentation (exhibits A-1, A-2) insufficient; summary judgment for ODE affirmed on OT claims |
| Whether consultative/evaluation services are compensable under R.C. 3310.41 and administrative rules | Dragonfly: statute/rules do not limit scholarship payments to direct services; consultative services may be compensable | ODE: statute and rules limit scholarship funds to services that implement the IEP (direct special-education and related services) | Court adopts ODE's interpretation: scholarship funds pay only for services implementing IEP (direct educational services), not evaluations/consults; Dragonfly's argument rejected |
| Sufficiency of 12/17/2014 invoice and provider employment dates (2014–2015) | Invoice should be accepted despite being paper; Abrams' affidavit and employment records show provider (Berkey) worked into November 2014 | Invoice lacked provider names, service descriptions; Abrams' testimony speculative and uncorroborated; Berkey disputed end date | December 2014 invoice was inadequate to prove entitlement; summary judgment for ODE affirmed on 2014–2015 claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudson v. Petrosurance, 127 Ohio St.3d 54 (2010) (summary-judgment standard and de novo appellate review)
- Sinnott v. Aqua-Chem, 116 Ohio St.3d 158 (2007) (summary-judgment principles)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (moving party’s burden and non-moving party’s reciprocal burden under Civ.R. 56)
- Zurz v. 770 W. Broad AGA, L.L.C., 192 Ohio App.3d 521 (10th Dist. 2011) (appellate standard of review for summary judgment)
- White v. Westfall, 183 Ohio App.3d 807 (10th Dist. 2009) (appellate summary-judgment review)
- Great Seneca Fin. v. Felty, 170 Ohio App.3d 737 (1st Dist. 2006) (elements for prima facie case on account/collection)