Helms v. Summit Cty. Combined Gen. Health Dist.
2017 Ohio 7915
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Joel Helms (SureFlow Septic) applied to register as a service provider under Ohio Adm.Code 3701-29-03; the Summit County Board of Health denied the application on November 15, 2016.
- Helms filed an administrative appeal to the Summit County Court of Common Pleas on December 12, 2016 and indicated on the form he also sought mandamus and declaratory relief.
- The Health District moved to dismiss, arguing the appeal was untimely under R.C. 119.12(D) (15 days from mailing) and that Helms’s filing did not constitute a mandamus or declaratory petition; it later moved to strike Helms’s amended petitions.
- The common pleas court granted the motion to dismiss and the motion to strike. Helms appealed, raising four assignments of error.
- The appellate court held that the Board of Health is a state agency covered by R.C. 119.12, sustained Helms’s challenge to the Health District’s proof of mailing, found other assignments moot or without merit, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Helms’s Argument | Health District’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the administrative appeal is governed by R.C. Chapter 119 (15‑day mailing rule) or R.C. 2505 | Chapter 119 does not apply to the Board of Health; appeal governed by 2505 | The Board of Health is a state agency and R.C. 119.12(D) applies | Court: Board of Health is a state agency; R.C. 119.12 applies (Helms’s challenge overruled) |
| Whether the Health District proved the date the decision was mailed (jurisdiction/timeliness) | Tracking sheet is insufficient; Health District failed to prove mailing date | Submitted USPS tracking record showing certified pickup on Nov 15, 2016 | Court: Agency failed to carry its burden to prove actual date of mailing; dismissal for untimeliness reversed (Helms’s third assignment sustained) |
| Whether the common pleas court erred by denying en banc consideration after dismissal | En banc consideration required / wrongfully denied | Dismissal was proper (or issue mooted) | Court: Issue moot in light of reversal on mailing; assignment overruled as moot |
| Whether the court improperly struck Helms’s amended petitions for mandamus/declaratory relief | Amendments were timely and allowed; could seek mandamus/declaratory within appeal | Amendments failed to comply with Civ.R. 15; cannot convert an R.C. 119 administrative appeal into mandamus/declaratory claims | Court: Helms identified no authority allowing mandamus/declaratory relief within R.C. 119.12 appeal; striking amendments was not error (assignment overruled) |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson’s Markets, Inc. v. New Carlisle Dept. of Health, 58 Ohio St.3d 28 (concluded health districts/boards are state agencies)
- Board of Health of St. Bernard v. St. Bernard, 19 Ohio St.2d 49 (earlier precedent treating health districts as state entities)
- State ex rel. Mowrer v. Underwood, 137 Ohio St. 1 (origin of principle that transferred health powers make districts state agencies)