Hinton Adult Care Facility v. Ohio Dept. of Mental Health & Addiction Servs.
2017 Ohio 4113
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Friendship and Hinton are licensed adult group homes in Ross County that voluntarily accepted residents in Ohio’s Residential State Supplement (RSS) program.
- ODMHAS notified both in 2012–2013 that RSS participants may be charged above the agency’s allowable fee; review of resident agreements showed both homes charged substantially more than the $877/month allowable fee then in effect.
- ODMHAS issued notices (denial of renewal for Friendship; revocation for Hinton) and, after a joint administrative hearing, the Hearing Examiner recommended denial/revocation; the Director adopted those recommendations.
- The common pleas court affirmed the Adjudication Orders, finding they were supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence and in accordance with law.
- On appeal, Friendship and Hinton argued: (1) ODMHAS lacked authority to set a maximum allowable fee for RSS residents, (2) the administrative rules conflicted with the Social Security Act, and (3) related violations (exploitation and interference with personal financial affairs) flowed from an invalid rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to set an "allowable fee" for RSS residents | Agency lacked statutory authority to limit what group homes may charge; rule exceeds legislative grant | R.C. 5119.41 grants broad rulemaking power to implement RSS, including protections and fee rules | Court: ODMHAS had authority; rules implement legislative policy and are within delegated power |
| Conflict with the Social Security Act | Rules improperly regulate or limit Social Security funds paid to residents/received by homes | No identified conflict; Social Security payments belong to residents, not homes; appellants provided no supporting authority | Court: Appellants failed to show conflict or cite authority; rule does not conflict with federal law |
| Validity of O.A.C. 5122-36-04(D) (accepting allowable fee as payment in full) | Rule invalid and therefore cannot support enforcement or downstream findings | Rule validly promulgated to implement RSS program and protect vulnerable residents | Court: Rule valid and enforceable |
| Exploitation and deprivation of personal financial rights | Findings under O.A.C. 5122-33-23(B)(4) and (B)(15) invalid if underlying fee rule invalid | Overcharging RSS residents left them with minimal personal funds and thus violated rights and constituted exploitation | Court: Because fee rule valid and evidence showed overcharging, findings of deprivation and exploitation upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (establishes the standard of review for R.C. 119.12 administrative appeals)
- In re Williams, 60 Ohio St.3d 85 (administrative appeal review standard)
- Ohio Civ. Rights Comm. v. Case W. Res. Univ., 76 Ohio St.3d 168 (definition of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence)
- Our Place, Inc. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm., 63 Ohio St.3d 570 (evidence standards cited in administrative review)
- Univ. of Cincinnati v. Conrad, 63 Ohio St.2d 108 (scope of common pleas court review of administrative orders)
- Plumbers & Steamfitters Joint Apprenticeship Commt. v. Ohio Civ. Rights Comm., 66 Ohio St.2d 192 (deference to administrative findings with limits)
- Kisil v. Sandusky, 12 Ohio St.3d 30 (limits on de novo review by courts)
- VFW Post 8586 v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm., 83 Ohio St.3d 79 (appellate review of legal questions in administrative cases)
- Hoffman v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio, 113 Ohio St.3d 376 (validity of agency rules unless unreasonable or conflicting with statutes)
- Washington Cty. Home v. Ohio Dept. of Health, 178 Ohio App.3d 78 (4th Dist. decision adopting the administrative-review standard used here)