Inner City Living, Inc. v. Dept. of Dev. Disabilities
2017 Ohio 8317
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- DODD conducted a May 2014 compliance review of Inner City Living (ICL) and issued three "immediate citations" (lack of first-aid/CPR training for staff, unsafe client-transport vehicle condition, and missing prehire background checks) and a compliance-summary citing 34 violations. None of the citations were appealed.
- ICL's certification was suspended (could not accept new clients). ICL failed to submit an acceptable plan of correction (POC) within 14 days; DODD granted extensions and technical assistance but ultimately rejected multiple POC drafts.
- DODD initiated revocation proceedings; ICL requested a hearing. An unannounced October follow-up found two additional violations, prompting a second POC requirement. DODD later approved POCs but scheduled verification visits.
- December verification found 13 of the original 34 May violations remained and discovered new, serious violations (e.g., improperly coded background checks, allowing a driver with excessive license points to transport clients).
- DODD revoked ICL’s certification under R.C. 5123.166(B); the administrative hearing upheld revocation. ICL’s R.C. 119.12 appeal to Cuyahoga C.P. failed; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DODD's revocation notice satisfied R.C. 119.07 (must state law directly involved) | Notice was inadequate because agency should have identified the specific subdivision(s) of R.C. 5123.166(B) relied upon | Notice adequately listed R.C. 5123.166(B) and provided specific factual allegations supporting revocation under the statute's enumerated grounds | Court held notice complied with R.C. 119.07; agency need not pick specific subdivision in advance |
| Whether DODD was bound to follow its internal "Compliance Review Protocol" and produce an internal "basic work flow" document (and whether failure deprived ICL of due process) | DODD failed to follow its protocol (which promised up to three compliance checks) and withheld internal workflow, denying meaningful cross-examination and due process | Protocol is an internal guideline (not a promulgated rule); DODD admitted it did not follow the protocol and explained why; the internal workflow was immaterial to the revocation decision | Court held internal protocol/workflow was not controlling; failure to produce the internal document was not reversible error and did not deprive ICL of due process |
| Whether the remaining violations were merely "clerical" and insufficient to support revocation (substantial, reliable, probative evidence) | Violations were clerical/paperwork errors that caused no actual harm and thus did not justify revocation | Violations included missing background checks, inadequate driver/vehicle safety, missing first-aid/drug screening — posing risks to client safety; many violations recurred across visits | Court found substantial, reliable, probative evidence supported revocation; characterization as merely clerical was rejected |
| Whether trial court erred by failing to issue Civ.R. 52 findings of fact/conclusions of law | Trial court should have issued Civ.R. 52 findings | No timely request for Civ.R. 52 findings was made; rule therefore inapplicable | Court found no error because ICL failed to timely request findings under Civ.R. 52 |
Key Cases Cited
- Spitznagel v. State Bd. of Edn., 126 Ohio St.3d 174, 931 N.E.2d 1061 (standard of review for common pleas and appellate courts on administrative appeals)
- Simic v. Accountancy Bd. of Ohio, 15 N.E.3d 1247 (8th Dist.) (notice under R.C. 119.07 must fairly inform respondent if agency will pursue a different statutory subdivision requiring a different factual predicate)
- Our Place, Inc. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm., 63 Ohio St.3d 570, 589 N.E.2d 1303 (agency may revoke despite partial or subsequent correction of cited deficiencies)