Irby v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
2017 Ohio 2629
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In Sept. 2015 Irby filed Court of Claims case No. 2015-00822AD (822AD) seeking $5,000 for injuries allegedly caused by chemical smells during prison roofing work; he named a prison official (Major Fullencamp) on the complaint form.
- The clerk sua sponte dismissed Fullencamp as an improper party and substituted the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) as the defendant in the 822AD case.
- Irby then filed a second complaint (2015-00900) in Oct. 2015 against ODRC for the same incident, this time seeking $15,000.
- The 822AD matter (seeking $10,000 or less) was administratively determined by a deputy clerk under R.C. 2743.10, resulting in denial of Irby’s claim on May 6, 2016; Irby did not appeal that determination.
- ODRC moved for summary judgment in the later-filed 2015-00900 case, asserting res judicata/collateral estoppel and that R.C. 2743.10(D) bars a subsequent action arising from the same facts; the Court of Claims granted summary judgment for ODRC, and Irby appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Irby’s second action is barred by res judicata / collateral estoppel | Irby: the first case named a different party (Fullencamp), so res judicata does not apply; Court erred in treating the 822AD determination as binding | ODRC: the 822AD claim was effectively against ODRC (Fullencamp substitution), involved the same claim and parties, and was decided; res judicata/collateral estoppel or R.C. 2743.10(D) bars the second suit | Court: affirmed dismissal — the administratively decided first action precluded the second; substitution of ODRC made parties identical and R.C. 2743.10(D) bars subsequent actions arising from same facts |
| Whether an administratively determined R.C. 2743.10 decision can supply preclusion effect | Irby: (implicitly) administrative determination is not equivalent to a judicial decision for preclusion | ODRC: administrative determination qualifies or, at minimum, R.C. 2743.10(D) statutorily bars subsequent suits on same transaction | Court: recognized potential differences but held Schachter and related precedent permit preclusion from quasi-judicial administrative proceedings and, regardless, R.C. 2743.10(D) statutorily bars a new Court of Claims action on the same facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooks v. Kelly, 144 Ohio St.3d 322 (2015) (explains res judicata includes claim and issue preclusion)
- Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379 (1995) (res judicata applies to quasi-judicial administrative proceedings when parties had ample opportunity to litigate)
- State ex rel. Schachter v. Ohio Pub. Emps. Retirement Bd., 121 Ohio St.3d 526 (2009) (discusses when administrative proceedings are quasi-judicial and preclusive)
- Set Prods., Inc. v. Bainbridge Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 31 Ohio St.3d 260 (1987) (quasi-judicial administrative proceedings are preclusive when parties had ample opportunity to litigate)
- State ex rel. Stacy v. Batavia Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 97 Ohio St.3d 269 (2002) (defines collateral estoppel/issue preclusion)
- Norwood v. McDonald, 142 Ohio St. (1943) (final judgment on the merits bars subsequent action between same parties)
- Whitehead v. Gen. Tel. Co., 20 Ohio St.2d 108 (1969) (discusses claim preclusion principles)