Huff v. Ohio State Racing Comm.
2016 Ohio 8336
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Huff was trainer and part-owner of Bell Flower, winner of a July 18, 2014 race at Scioto Downs; groom Barbara Huff accompanied the horse to the test barn for required post-race testing.
- After initial blood/urine collection, Barbara left the test barn before a second blood draw (for TCO2) scheduled about 90 minutes after the race; she signed for sealing of the urine sample but Bell Flower departed before the final blood draw.
- Judges disqualified Bell Flower, placed her last, and ordered forfeiture of the $20,000 winner’s share; Huff appealed to the Ohio State Racing Commission, which adopted a hearing examiner’s recommendation upholding sanctions.
- Huff appealed to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas; that court affirmed the Commission. Huff appealed to the Tenth District, raising procedural, due-process, evidentiary, and rule-promulgation claims.
- The Tenth District affirmed in part and reversed in part: it sustained sanctioning under certain Admin. Code provisions for failing to remain for testing, rejected the unpromulgated-rule claim, found no deprivation of meaningful process, but ordered correction to remove any finding of violation of R.C. 3769.091.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Huff) | Defendant's Argument (Commission) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the agency failed to file a complete record (R.C.119.12) | Commission omitted stenographic transcript of the Commission meeting adopting the report; judgment should be entered for Huff | Statute requires a complete record of the adjudicative hearing, not deliberative meeting minutes or transcript | Denied—no mandatory omission; stenographic record of deliberations not required; assignment overruled |
| Whether Exhibit J (post-race TCO2 procedure) was an unpromulgated rule | Exhibit J changed testing procedure and was enforced without rule promulgation | Exhibit J is a guideline interpreting existing rules, not an enlarging rule requiring R.C. 119 procedures | Denied—Exhibit J interpreted existing Admin. Code provisions; not an unpromulgated rule; assignment overruled |
| Whether commission order was supported by reliable, probative, substantial evidence given alleged hearing-examiner errors and credibility issues | Hearing examiner made numerous factual errors and mischaracterized testimony; thus findings are unreliable | Errors were largely immaterial; examiner and commission independently weighed credibility and evidence | Affirmed—errors were non-dispositive and record contained sufficient reliable, probative, substantial evidence; assignment overruled |
| Whether Huff’s due-process rights were violated (notice, meaningful hearing) | No notice of violation of R.C. 3769.091; hearing examiner denied meaningful process (refused barn view, witness order, examiner questioning) | Huff received notice and a full hearing; objections, testimony, and argument were made; examiner’s questions were proper | Mostly denied—Huff had notice and opportunity to be heard; examiner’s conduct not prejudicial; ordered correction to remove any finding of violation of R.C. 3769.091 |
Key Cases Cited
- Univ. of Cincinnati v. Conrad, 63 Ohio St.2d 108 (court must determine if agency order has reliable, probative, and substantial evidence)
- Our Place, Inc. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm., 63 Ohio St.3d 570 (definitions of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence)
- Checker Realty Co. v. Ohio Real Estate Comm., 41 Ohio App.2d 37 (what constitutes a "complete record of proceedings" under R.C. 119.12)
- Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (standard of appellate review of common pleas court in administrative appeals)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (definition of "abuse of discretion")
- Ohio Historical Soc. v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 466 (deference to agency factual findings; courts may reject findings only when unsupported or internally inconsistent)