Silver Lining Group EIC Morrow Cty. v. Ohio Dept. Edn. Autism Scholarship Program
2017 Ohio 7834
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- SLG and BIIO (private companies providing ABA services) operated multiple locations and were approved by ODE as registered private providers at certain locations prior to 2013–2014; they opened additional sites (Columbus and St. Clairsville) and did not timely submit completed provider applications for each new site.
- ODE told providers in 2013 they needed to create separate applications for each physical location; appellants began but did not submit applications for the new sites until October 2013. ODE withheld payments for students listed at unregistered locations.
- ODE placed the Columbus and St. Clairsville applications in "correction needed" status; St. Clairsville was approved April 15, 2014; Columbus was not approved during the 2013–2014 year.
- Appellants sued ODE seeking $366,300.25 for ASP services provided at the unregistered locations (collection on account) and later added an unjust enrichment claim.
- The trial court granted ODE summary judgment, holding (1) R.C. 3310.41 and O.A.C. 3301‑103 require registration of each physical provider location and (2) appellants failed to prove unjust enrichment; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of "registered private provider" under R.C. 3310.41 | One entity approval covers all company locations; statute does not require separate registration per facility | "Nonpublic entity" reasonably read as site‑specific; ODE rules require facility registration to verify health/safety, credentials, on‑site monitoring | Court: Term is ambiguous; defer to ODE’s reasonable administrative interpretation requiring separate registration per location; affirm summary judgment for ODE |
| Applicability of agency deference to ODE's rule interpretation | No deference; court should not add a location‑by‑location requirement not explicit in statute | Deference appropriate where statute is ambiguous and agency has delegated authority and expertise; ODE reasonably filled the legislative gap | Court: Administrative deference applies; ODE’s interpretation is reasonable and binding |
| Waiver/estoppel from ODE's earlier payments | Appellants argue prior payments waived requirement or estopped ODE from withholding later payments | ODE argues waiver/estoppel principles generally do not bind the State in exercise of governmental function | Court: Waiver/estoppel do not apply against the State here; payments resulted from appellants submitting invoices through approved locations |
| Unjust enrichment claim | Appellants argue they conferred a benefit on ODE by educating students (relieving districts/ODE of expense), so ODE was unjustly enriched | ODE contends any benefit went to students or districts, and appellants cannot show ODE retained funds; also plaintiffs’ entitlement is statutory (contractual), barring quasi‑contract remedy | Court: Plaintiffs failed to show ODE received/retained a benefit and also seek payment based on statutory promise; unjust enrichment claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudson v. Petrosurance, Inc., 127 Ohio St.3d 54 (2010) (summary judgment standard and de novo appellate review)
- Sinnott v. Aqua‑Chem, Inc., 116 Ohio St.3d 158 (2007) (summary judgment standard)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (party moving for summary judgment must affirmatively show absence of genuine issue)
- Shell v. Ohio Veterinary Med. Licensing Bd., 105 Ohio St.3d 420 (2005) (deference to agency interpretation where General Assembly delegated enforcement)
- State ex rel. Celebrezze v. Natl. Lime & Stone Co., 68 Ohio St.3d 377 (1994) (administrative rules issued pursuant to statute have force of law unless unreasonable)
- Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199 (1974) (agencies may fill gaps left by statute in administering programs)