Inrex Home Care, L.L.C. v. Ohio Dept. of Dev. Disabilities
2016 Ohio 7986
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Inrex Home Care, LLC is a certified provider for developmentally disabled clients; the Ohio Department of Developmental Disabilities audited Inrex in 2014–2015.
- Based on audit findings, the department issued an order revoking Inrex’s certification on October 27, 2016.
- Inrex appealed to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas under R.C. 119.12 and sought a stay; a duty judge granted a temporary stay through December 2, 2016, but the assigned judge declined to extend it.
- Inrex timely appealed to the Tenth District Court of Appeals and moved for a temporary injunction under App.R. 7 to enjoin enforcement of the revocation while the administrative appeal proceeds.
- Inrex argued likely success on the merits (statute R.C. 5123.166 is unconstitutionally vague; audit procedural defects; no client harm), irreparable harm (business closure, employee layoffs), and public interest in preserving continuity of care.
- The department argued the revocation is supported by substantial evidence, the statutory grounds are valid, and public interest favors enforcement to protect vulnerable clients.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Inrex is likely to succeed on the merits of its administrative appeal (including challenge to revocation grounds) | Revocation rests on vague statutory terms and procedural audit defects; Inrex corrected violations and now complies | Revocation is supported by substantial evidence of multiple violations; statute/regulations authorize revocation even if violations are later corrected | Denied — Inrex failed to show likelihood of success; deferential administrative review and regulation allowing revocation despite later compliance weigh against Inrex |
| Whether R.C. 5123.166 is unconstitutionally vague | Terms like "misfeasance" and "conduct injurious" are too indefinite to give fair notice | Statute is presumptively constitutional; contains precise bases (e.g., failure to meet certification standards); courts should construe to preserve validity | Denied — strong presumption of constitutionality; severability would leave operative provisions sufficient |
| Whether Inrex faces irreparable harm absent an injunction | Immediate business closure and employee loss if revocation enforced | Department did not dispute potential business loss but argued client safety and compliance concerns outweigh that harm | In favor of Inrex on this factor — risk of business loss qualifies as irreparable harm |
| Whether injunction serves public interest and avoids third-party harm | Keeping operations stable serves clients and employees; status quo better for client continuity | Public interest favors effective, prompt regulatory enforcement to protect vulnerable clients; alternate compliant providers available | Denied — public interest and need for regulatory enforcement outweigh Inrex’s equities; third-party harm is neutral/even |
Key Cases Cited
- Our Place, Inc. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm., 63 Ohio St.3d 570 (1992) (scope of review: affirm agency if supported by reliable, probative, substantial evidence)
- Harris v. Lewis, 69 Ohio St.2d 577 (1982) (courts will not substitute judgment for agency where some evidence supports order)
- Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (1972) (vagueness test: fair notice to ordinary persons)
- Norwood v. Horney, 110 Ohio St.3d 353 (2006) (severability preserves operative portions of statute)
- Bob Krihwan Pontiac-GMC Truck, Inc. v. GMC, 141 Ohio App.3d 777 (10th Dist.) (stay factors and standards for appellate intervention)
- Desenco, Inc. v. Akron, 84 Ohio St.3d 535 (1999) (courts construe statutes to save them from constitutional infirmities)
- State ex rel. Dickman v. Defenbacher, 164 Ohio St. 142 (1955) (presumption of constitutionality of legislative enactments)