591 N.E.2d 301 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1990
This is an appeal by appellant, Sheldon Lee Brooks, from a judgment of the common pleas court affirming an order of appellee, Ohio Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors ("board") denying appellant's application for licensure as a funeral director. The board denied appellant's application for the reason that appellant failed to meet the educational requirements established by administrative regulation.
Appellant has worked for the majority of his fifty-seven years in various aspects of the funeral business. His experience includes employment with a variety of funeral homes, most recently with the Brooks Funeral Home located in Columbus. Appellant acquired an interest in the Brooks Funeral Home in 1970 where he, in conjunction with a licensed funeral director, operates the funeral home.
Appellant has also attended various post-secondary educational institutions, including the Ohio State University and Ohio Dominican College. As a result of his college education, appellant has the equivalent of forty-seven semester credit hours. *571
In May 1987, appellant submitted an application to the board for licensure as a funeral director. The board, by letter dated June 2, 1987, proposed the denial of his application for the reason that appellant lacked the equivalent of sixty semester credit hours as required by Ohio Adm. Code
Upon appeal pursuant to R.C.
On appeal, appellant sets forth the following three assignments of error:
"I. The board failed to correctly apply its statutes.
"II. The board has inherent power to see that its laws are administered fairly.
"III. The board's statutes, as applied, are unconstitutional."
Under his first assignment of error, appellant maintains that the board misconstrued the statutory language in R.C.
The interpretation of statutes by an administrative agency is entitled to due deference by a reviewing court. State, ex rel.McLean, v. Indus. Comm. (1986),
Here, the requirement imposed by Ohio Adm. Code
"* * * [T]he applicant for funeral director's license must obtain a funeral director's application for registration, form F-1, showing that the applicant has earned prior credits of not less than two years of general education or the equivalent thereof consisting of not less than sixty semester hours or ninety quarter hours in a college or university * * *."
This rule constitutes a reasonable and valid interpretation of the statutory requirement imposed by R.C.
Appellant asserts under his second assignment of error that the board has the inherent power to give him credit for prior work experience such that his twenty-five years of work in the funeral industry is the equivalent of twelve semester hours of college level work. It is appellant's position that the board erred in concluding that it had no power to waive its sixty semester-credit-hour requirement and grant appellant's application to sit for the licensing examination for funeral directors.
The essence of appellant's second assignment of error is that the board is empowered to waive its administrative regulation such that "a fair result" is reached. However, an agency is required to comply with the substantive requirements of its own regulations. See State, ex rel. Consumers *573 League of Ohio, v. Ratchford (1982),
Here, R.C.
Finally, appellant contends that Ohio Adm. Code
The standard of review required by the Equal Protection Clause requires that an administrative regulation, at a minimum, further a legitimate government interest. Cf. Roosevelt Apts. v.Nichols (1983),
Appellant does not dispute the legitimacy of Ohio's interest in assuring competency among funeral directors. The legislature has empowered the board to achieve this goal by testing license applicants on subjects specified by the board. R.C.
With respect to appellant's due process claims, appellant appears to suggest that because he has worked the majority of his life in the funeral business, he is entitled to be licensed by this state as a funeral director. However, R.C. Chapter 4717 does not vest entitlement to be licensed as a funeral director absent compliance with the specific statutory provisions. As noted above, both the statute and the regulation bear some reasonable relationship to a legitimate governmental interest and reflect neither an arbitrary nor capricious exercise of legislative power. As such, appellant's due process claim is devoid of merit. The third assignment of error is overruled.
Having overruled all three assignments of error, the judgment of the court of common pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
McCORMAC and JOHN C. YOUNG, JJ., concur.
GEORGE F. BURKHART, J., of the Muskingum County Common Pleas Court, sitting by assignment.