Howard v. Ohio State Racing Comm., 145 N.E.3d 1254

Appellant Carl Howard owned Primo Giovanni, which finished second in a June 10, 2017 harness race at Scioto Downs; track judges disqualified Primo Giovanni from 2nd to 10th for "sitting down" (abrupt slowdown) causing interference and a horse to break stride.
Judges relied on race video and drivers' statements; they found the slowdown caused a chain reaction though they did not believe the driver, Joshua Sutton, acted intentionally.
Howard and driver Sutton appealed to the Ohio State Racing Commission; a hearing officer recommended reversing the judges, concluding the driving rule required intentional conduct and none was shown.
The commission held an open hearing, privately deliberated, and unanimously rejected the hearing officer, adopting the track judges’ finding and ruling that intent is not required by O.A.C. 3769-17-11.
Howard appealed to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, which affirmed; this appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the commission's order was supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence	Howard: Video/times show Primo Giovanni did not meaningfully slow; Starlite Kid wasn’t affected, so no rule violation	Commission: Judges’ testimony + video show an abrupt slowdown produced a chain reaction that impeded trailing horses and caused a break	Held: Affirmed — judges’ testimony and video provided reliable, probative, substantial evidence of violations of O.A.C. 3769-17-11(A)(7) and (9)
Whether the commission's order was in accordance with law (R.C. 119.09, due process, Open Meetings Act)	Howard: Commission failed to state proper reasons for rejecting the hearing officer; oral objections and private deliberation denied due process and violated Sunshine Law	Commission: Notification of adjudication set forth reasons; R.C. 119.09 does not require written objections; proceedings were quasi-judicial so private deliberation was permitted	Held: Affirmed — notification adequately stated reasons under R.C. 119.09; no due-process violation; Open Meetings Act did not apply to the commission’s quasi-judicial deliberation

Univ. of Cincinnati v. Conrad, 63 Ohio St.2d 108 (common pleas reviews entire administrative record for reliable, probative, substantial evidence)
Our Place, Inc. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm., 63 Ohio St.3d 570 (defines reliable, probative, substantial evidence)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (standard for abuse of discretion)
Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard)
TBC Westlake, Inc. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision, 81 Ohio St.3d 58 (Sunshine Law does not apply to quasi-judicial adjudications)
Ohio Historical Soc. v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 466 (de novo review on questions of law; agency orders must be in accordance with law)
State ex rel. Ewart v. Indus. Comm., 76 Ohio St.3d 139 (administrative agency speaks through its orders)
Lies v. Ohio Veterinary Med. Bd., 2 Ohio App.3d 204 (trial court must appraise evidence credibility and weight)