Small World Early Childhood Ctr. v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs.
2017 Ohio 8336
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Small World Early Childhood Center contracted with ODJFS to provide publicly funded child care and was investigated for misuse of Ohio ECC swipe cards after observed discrepancies between timed headcounts and ECC swipe records.
- ODJFS found大量 (99) swipe cards on premises and concluded Small World received overpayments of $442,963.67; it issued a proposed suspension/termination and overpayment notice.
- Small World sought internal appeals/reconsideration with ODJFS; the bureau chief issued two final department decisions denying the appeal and denying reconsideration.
- Small World filed a R.C. 119.12 / R.C. 5101.35 administrative appeal in Montgomery County Common Pleas.
- ODJFS moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing the decisions were not adjudications by an "agency" under R.C. Chapter 119 and that R.C. 5101.35 did not authorize judicial review of these determinations.
- The trial court granted the Civ.R. 12(B)(1) dismissal; the appellate court affirmed, holding Small World had no right to judicial review under R.C. 119.12 or R.C. 5101.35 and noting mandamus may be the available remedy for discretionary, nonappealable agency acts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ODJFS decisions (suspension/termination and overpayment) are "adjudications" under R.C. 119.12 permitting appeal to common pleas | Small World: the decisions are agency adjudications subject to R.C. 119.12 judicial review | ODJFS: R.C. 119.01(A) limits "agency" coverage; these decisions are outside Chapter 119 adjudication scope | Held: No — ODJFS decisions here are not adjudications under R.C. 119.01(A); R.C. 119.12 does not apply |
| Whether R.C. 5101.35 authorizes judicial review of these ODJFS decisions | Small World: R.C. 5101.35 is a general appeal provision for ODJFS decisions and applies to providers as "appellants" | ODJFS: A provider is not an "appellant" entitled to a state hearing under R.C. 5101.35 because no entitlement to a hearing exists here | Held: No — Small World is not an "appellant" entitled to a hearing under R.C. 5101.35; section does not provide for appeal here |
| Whether incorporation of Chapter 119 rulemaking in related statutes creates a right to judicial review | Small World: statutes requiring rulemaking (e.g., R.C. 5101.46 / 5104.38) imply Chapter 119 review rights | ODJFS: Incorporation for rulemaking does not automatically confer Chapter 119 adjudicative-review rights | Held: Incorporation for rulemaking is insufficient to create a right to adjudicative review under R.C. 119.12 |
| Availability of any judicial remedy for nonappealable agency discretion | Small World: sought review by common pleas | ODJFS: argues dismissal is appropriate; other remedies may lie elsewhere | Held: Administrative appeal is unavailable, but writ of mandamus may be the proper vehicle to challenge discretionary, nonappealable agency action (must show abuse of discretion) |
Key Cases Cited
- Proctor v. Kardassilaris, 873 N.E.2d 872 (Ohio 2007) (sovereign immunity and limits on suits against the state)
- State ex rel. Ohio Civ. Serv. Emps. Assn. v. State, 56 N.E.3d 913 (Ohio 2016) (standard for reviewing Civ.R. 12(B)(1) dismissal; jurisdictional principles)
- Crawford-Cole v. Lucas Cty. Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 906 N.E.2d 409 (Ohio 2009) (distinguishes Chapter 119 rulemaking and adjudication procedures)
- Baltimore Ravens, Inc. v. Self-Insuring Emp. Evaluation Bd., 764 N.E.2d 418 (Ohio 2002) (R.C. 119.12 does not allow review of all agency actions)
- Plumbers & Steamfitters Joint Apprenticeship Comm. v. Ohio Civil Rights Comm., 421 N.E.2d 128 (Ohio 1981) (limits on Chapter 119 judicial review)
- Ohio Academy of Nursing Homes v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 867 N.E.2d 400 (Ohio 2007) (mandamus as the remedy to challenge discretionary, nonappealable agency action)