Regina Kahles v. City of Cincinnati
704 F. App'x 501
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Ten former City of Cincinnati employees received disability retirement allowances under CMC §203-41 and were subject to audits under §203-55, which allowed termination if a beneficiary could engage in gainful employment.
- Between 1991–2010 each plaintiff was originally found disabled; the Board rarely re-examined beneficiaries until an uptick in audits beginning in 2012–2013.
- In 2013 the City amended §203-55 to change the disability standard: termination could follow the medical director’s recommendation that the beneficiary is able to engage in gainful employment without regard to compensation level.
- The Board’s audit procedure: medical director (Dr. Hogya) examines and recommends, a Board committee reviews and the Board votes; appellants may submit additional medical evidence to Hogya who reviews appeals; Board denial is final administratively but mandamus is available in state court.
- Plaintiffs sued in consolidated actions alleging procedural-due-process violations (facial and as-applied), a substantive-due-process claim, an Ohio retroactivity violation (Ohio Const. art. II, §28), and various state-law claims; the district court granted summary judgment for the City on federal claims and the Ohio retroactivity claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural due process — adequacy of pre/post-deprivation procedures | Audits violated due process because Dr. Hogya both makes the initial finding and is sole evaluator of appeals, creating a risk of erroneous deprivation | Plaintiffs received notice, opportunity to submit evidence, multiple reviewers (committee/Board), and state mandamus remedy for abuse of discretion | Court held procedures were constitutionally adequate; summary judgment for City affirmed |
| Retroactivity under Ohio Const. art. II, §28 | Ordinance 83-2013 retroactively impaired vested rights by changing disability standard and stripping benefits | Changes were prospective; beneficiaries never had vested, indefeasible right because audits and termination were authorized pre-amendment | Court held amendment was not retroactive impairment of vested rights; summary judgment for City affirmed |
| Availability of judicial review | Plaintiffs argued lack of independent administrative review made meaningful review impossible | City noted availability of mandamus in state court to correct abuse of discretion | Court found mandamus and the administrative record provide adequate review; procedure sufficed for due process |
| Claim that Board recoupment or retroactive application would occur | Plaintiffs feared recoupment or retroactive effect | City presented testimony that amendment applied prospectively and no recoupment was pursued | Court accepted prospective application and no impairment of past benefits; claim rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (Due process balancing: notice and opportunity to be heard tailored to the decision)
- State ex rel. Cydrus v. Ohio Pub. Emps. Ret. Sys., 938 N.E.2d 1028 (Ohio mandamus is appropriate remedy when no statutory appeal exists from a pension board’s termination decision)
- State ex rel. Jordan v. Indus. Comm’n of Ohio, 900 N.E.2d 150 (definition of retroactive law and vested-rights standard under Ohio law)
- State ex rel. Youngstown v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Elections, 647 N.E.2d 769 (Ohio rule that constitutional prohibition on retroactive laws applies to charter amendments)