Royse v. City of Dayton
195 Ohio App. 3d 81
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Royse, a Dayton Fire Department employee for 14 years, was terminated after a May 14, 2007 with cocaine positive random drug test.
- After the positive result, Royse completed a substance-abuse program and returned to work following a May 31, 2007 negative return-to-duty screen.
- Royse was scheduled for eight follow-up random screens; he had two negatives, then a November 16, 2007 positive result.
- The city presented medical-review officer reports of the positive drug tests, but no testimony explained the testing methodology or data reviewed by the officer.
- Royse challenged the admissibility of the medical-review officer reports as hearsay; the board admitted them and discharge was upheld by the trial court, which Royse appealed under RC Chapter 2506, and the court affirmed the board.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly used RC 2506.04 review vs. de novo review | Royse argues for de novo review under RC 124.34 | City argues RC 2506.04 applies and requires deferential review | RC 2506.04 review applied; de novo not required |
| Whether the board properly admitted drug-test records as evidence | Royse asserts the records are inadmissible hearsay without authentication | Board relied on business-records or authenticated processes | Second assignment sustained; records not properly authenticated; reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Resek v. Seven Hills, 9 Ohio App.3d 224 (1983) (admits deference in administrative review; limits of evidentiary rules)
- Giannini v. Fairview Park, 107 Ohio App.3d 620 (1995) (admissibility standards in administrative appeals)
- Henley v. Youngstown Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 90 Ohio St.3d 142 (2000) (RC 2506.04 review limited to questions of law; substantial evidence standard)
- Kisil v. Sandusky, 12 Ohio St.3d 30 (1984) (limits on appellate review of administrative decisions)