2026-Ohio-1726
Ohio Ct. App. 10th2026Background
- Hartman, an Ohio physician since 2004, performed office-based cosmetic surgery, including liposuction, arm lifts, and breast augmentation, on 13 patients. 1
- The Board alleged violations of office-based liposuction rules, minimal standards of care, and sexual misconduct, and later summarily suspended Hartman's license. 2
- After six hearing days, the hearing examiner found multiple liposuction and care violations, rejected the sexual-misconduct claim as to Patient 11, and found sexual misconduct as to Patient 13. 3
- The hearing examiner recommended indefinite suspension with conditions, but the Board adopted the findings and permanently revoked Hartman's license. 4
- The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas affirmed, finding the Board's order supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence and in accordance with law. 5
- Hartman appealed, raising eight assignments of error attacking review standards, expert testimony, investigatory secrecy, social media videos, due process, Patient 13 credibility, and vagueness of the liposuction rule. 6
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court use the wrong R.C. 119.12 review standard? 7 | Hartman said the court ignored the 'in accordance with law' inquiry. | The Board said the court addressed Hartman's legal claims. | Overruled; the court considered both evidence and legality. 8 |
| Could the Board consider Surfield's CV testimony and Hartman's training? 9 | Hartman claimed the testimony exceeded the expert report and added uncharged misconduct. | The Board said Hartman waived the objection and his training was relevant to sanction. | Overruled; waiver and no abuse of discretion. 10 |
| Did R.C. 4731.22(F)(5) wrongly limit Hartman's subpoena/confidential-investigation evidence? 11 | Hartman said the statute barred exculpatory and mitigating evidence unfairly. | The Board said the excluded material was not probative and mitigation was discretionary. | Overruled; limitation was proper and not prejudicial. 12 |
| Were the social-media videos improperly admitted? 13 | Hartman said the videos were undisclosed and inadmissible. | The Board said Hartman opened the door and failed to object properly. | Overruled; issue forfeited and no abuse of discretion. 14 |
| Was the liposuction rule unconstitutionally vague? 15 | Hartman said 'focused, local, small, routine' were undefined. | The Board said the rule and exception gave adequate notice and standards. | Overruled; the rule is not void for vagueness. 16 |
Key Cases Cited
- Univ. of Cincinnati v. Conrad, 63 Ohio St.2d 108 (Ohio 1980) (common pleas review of agency orders under R.C. 119.12 17)
- Our Place, Inc. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm., 63 Ohio St.3d 570 (Ohio 1992) (defines reliable, probative, and substantial evidence 18)
- Andrews v. Bd. of Liquor Control, 164 Ohio St. 275 (Ohio 1955) (trial court must weigh credibility and evidence 19)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion means unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable 20)
- Universal Hosp., Univ. of Cincinnati College of Medicine v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 63 Ohio St.3d 339 (Ohio 1992) (purely legal questions receive de novo review 21)
- Shumaker v. Oliver B. Cannon & Sons, Inc., 28 Ohio St.3d 367 (Ohio 1986) (evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion 22)
- Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (U.S. 1965) (due process requires notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard 23)
- Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385 (U.S. 1914) (meaningful hearing must occur at a meaningful time and manner 24)