2020 Ohio 4160
Ohio2020Background
- Morrow County established a county hospital under R.C. Chapter 339; hospital trustees are appointed by an "appointing authority" described as the board of county commissioners together with the probate judge (senior in service) and the common-pleas judge (senior in service).
- Patrick Drouhard served as chair of the Morrow County Hospital Board of Trustees; the three county commissioners sought a show-cause hearing to remove him for alleged misconduct tied to (1) a dispute over a management contract/lease process and (2) refusal to recognize an appointed trustee (Earl Desmond).
- The commissioners passed a resolution scheduling a removal hearing without the probate/common-pleas judge’s signature; Judge Robert Hickson (who serves in both judicial capacities in Morrow County) objected, asserting the commissioners lack a majority of the appointing authority.
- Drouhard filed for a writ of prohibition to block the commissioners from proceeding, arguing the appointing authority is a three-member body (commissioners collectively one vote plus two judicial votes) and thus the commissioners lacked jurisdiction.
- The Supreme Court considered whether the commissioners patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction and whether Drouhard had an adequate remedy at law (e.g., appeal) and denied the writ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Drouhard) | Defendant's Argument (Commissioners) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Composition of the appointing authority (who votes) | The board of commissioners has a single collective vote; judges hold the other two votes, so commissioners are a minority | Each county commissioner has an individual vote, giving the commissioners a majority of appointing-authority votes | Each commissioner has a vote; commissioners constitute the majority of the appointing authority |
| Authority to schedule a removal (show-cause) hearing | Commissioners, as minority, lacked power to schedule or act for the appointing authority | As majority of appointing authority, commissioners had authority to set the hearing; absence of judicial signature does not patently strip jurisdiction | Commissioners had authority to schedule the hearing; no patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction |
| Appropriateness of prohibition (adequate remedy) | Immediate prohibition warranted because jurisdictional defect is patent and unambiguous | Drouhard has an adequate remedy by appeal from any removal decision; prohibition inappropriate absent a clear jurisdictional defect | No patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction; adequate remedy exists by appeal; prohibition denied |
| Mootness (whether case is moot) | Case not moot because Drouhard claims he still occupies a board seat filled by hospital board under R.C. 339.02(F)(2) | Commissioners argue Drouhard’s prior term expired, rendering the dispute moot | Mootness intertwined with merits (composition of appointing authority); court proceeds to merits and denies motion to dismiss as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Barney v. Union Cty. Bd. of Elections, 159 Ohio St.3d 50, 147 N.E.3d 595 (2019) (elements for writ of prohibition)
- C.H. v. O’Malley, 158 Ohio St.3d 107, 140 N.E.3d 589 (2019) (prohibition will not issue when adequate remedy at law exists)
- State ex rel. Capretta v. Zamiska, 135 Ohio St.3d 177, 985 N.E.2d 454 (2013) (appeal to common pleas court under R.C. 2506.01(A))
- State ex rel. Sapp v. Franklin Cty. Court of Appeals, 118 Ohio St.3d 368, 889 N.E.2d 500 (2008) (patent-and-unambiguous-jurisdiction rule permitting prophylactic prohibition)
- Ohio High School Athletic Assn. v. Ruehlman, 157 Ohio St.3d 296, 136 N.E.3d 436 (2019) (narrow exception when a tribunal patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction)
- In re Disqualification of White, 91 Ohio St.3d 1203, 741 N.E.2d 133 (2000) (observation that common-pleas judge has one of five votes in trustee appointments)
- In re Disqualification of Corbin, 91 Ohio St.3d 1205, 741 N.E.2d 134 (2000) (similar statement about shared appointment authority)