Crawford-Cole v. Lucas Cty. Dept. of Job & Family Servs.Crawford-Cole v. Lucas Cty. Dept. of Job & Family Servs.
* * * * *
Terry J. Lodge, for appellee.
Juliа R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, John A. Borell and Karlene D. Henderson, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellant.
* * * * *
HANDWORK, J.
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment issued by the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas in an administrative appeal from a decision of the Lucas County Department of Job & Family Services (“LCDJFS“) which dismissed appellee‘s initial
{¶ 2} This case is here for the second time on aрpeal, after our remand to the trial court to consider due process and notice issues relating to a 2007 decision issued to appellee by LCDJFS. See Crawford-Cole v. Lucas Cty. Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 6th Dist. No. L-07-1188, 2010-Ohio-1594. On remand, the trial court determined that appеllant, LCDJFS, failed to provide proper notice to appellee, Patricia Crawford-Cole, of her right to appeal its decision to revoke her daycare license. The court determined that, since the Ohio Administrative Code section containing the appellee‘s appeal rights was not enclosed with the letter revoking her license, the agency had “failed to properly provide Ms. Crawford-Cole with the information she needed to properly present her objections to the Department‘s actions” and violated the requirement of due process of law. Because of the due process violation, appellee‘s appeal of the department‘s decision should not have been dismissed for failure to file within the 10-day time limit, since she did not receive proрer notice. The trial court then remanded to the agency for “additional proceedings.”
{¶ 3} Appellant, LCDJFS, now appeals from the trial court‘s decision, arguing the following two assignments of error:
I. The trial court in its original dismissal and judgment entry properly found that Crawford-Cole failed to exhaust her administrative
remedies, thus the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to entertain an appeal. The opinions from the higher court did not address or reverse this finding. II. Due process does not require that appellate regulations be attached to a notice to an aggrieved party in a legal proсeeding.
I.
{¶ 4} Appellant claims in its first assignment of error that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction because the appellate court did not address or reverse the finding that appellee failed to exhaust her administrative remedies.
{¶ 5} This court has, in fact, previously addressed this issue. See Crawford-Cole v. Lucas Cty. Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 6th Dist. No. L-07-1188, 2010-Ohio-1594, ¶ 12. In that case, we stated that the “failure to timely request a hearing does not preclude a court‘s consideration of whether an agency‘s procedures comply with due process.” Id., citing Chirila v. Ohio State Chiropractic Bd., 145 Ohio App.3d 589, 594, 763 N.E.2d 1192 (10th Dist.2001). As noted in Chirila, the due process rights guaranteed by the United States and Ohio Constitutions apply in administrative proceedings since “[t]he fundаmental requirement of procedural due process is notice and hearing, that is, an opportunity to be heard.” Chirila, 145 Ohio App.3d at 593, 763 N.E.2d 1192, citing LTV Steel Co. v. Indus. Comm., 140 Ohio App.3d 680, 688, 748 N.E.2d 1176 (10th Dist.2000). See also Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335, 96 S.Ct. 893, 903, 47 L.Ed.2d 18, 33-34 (1976); Korn v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 61 Ohio App.3d 677, 684, 573 N.E.2d 1100 (10th Dist.1988).
{¶ 6} Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Ohio recognized that appelleе‘s due process claim remained valid. In a prior appeal of this case, the Supreme Court of Ohio determined that the 10-day time period of
{¶ 7} Nevertheless, after determining which time period fоr appeal was applicable, the Supreme Court of Ohio recognized that the remaining assignments of error might have validity, including whether appellee received proper notice of her right to appeal the agency‘s decision. Id. at ¶ 44. The Supreme Court of Ohio then remanded the case to this court and we ultimately remanded to the trial court for determination of appellee‘s violation of due process claims. Therefore, despite the initial ruling that appellant had failed to file her appeal within the 10-day time limit, both this court and the trial court had jurisdiction to consider thе due process arguments, and whether her appeal should be reinstated.
{¶ 8} Accordingly, appellant‘s first assignment of error is not well-taken.
{¶ 9} In its second assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred in its determination that the failure to attach the copy of the administrative regulations containing the process and time frame for appeal constituted a violation of аppellee‘s due process rights. We disagree.
{¶ 10} As determined by the Supreme Court of Ohio,
{¶ 11} An appellate court‘s review is generally more narrow in scope since it determines if the trial court abused its discretion in its review of the agency‘s decision. See Lorain City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 40 Ohio St.3d 257, 261, 533 N.E.2d 264 (1988);
{¶ 13} To comply with thе requirements of procedural due process, administrative agencies must, at a minimum, provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before depriving individuals of their protected liberty or prоperty interests. Kellough v. Ohio State Bd. of Edn., 10th Dist. No. 10AP-419, 2011-Ohio-431, ¶ 36, citing Cleveland Bd. of Edn. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985); Boddie v. Conn., 401 U.S. 371, 377-78, 91 S.Ct. 780, 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971); Ohio Assn. of Public School Employees, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. Lakewood City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 68 Ohio St.3d 175, 176, 624 N.E.2d 1043 (1994). “(D)ue process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.” Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972).
{¶ 14} Pursuant to
An applicant, certified professional type B or limited home provider, and professional or limited certified in-home aide shall be informed in writing of the right tо request a county appeal review when questioning the actions of the county department of job and family services (CDJFS) [EFS in this case] with respect to their certification.
Former
{¶ 15} In this case, the letter outlining appellant‘s decision to revoke appellee‘s day care license purported to attach a copy of
{¶ 16} Since the time for appeal of the department‘s decision is of such short duration, at minimum, the letter should have included notice of the ability to appeal and opрortunity to be heard, i.e., the time frame within which that appeal must be taken. Moreover, the mere reference to the administrative code section is inadequate, since it does not immediately сonvey the need for quick action to perfect an appeal.
{¶ 17} Even though no specific statutory requirement exists for such notice, the absence of that information, especially where the appeal time period is brief, violates the right to due process and unfairly diminishes the right to appeal. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court‘s assessment that appellee wаs not afforded due process was proper.
{¶ 18} Accordingly, appellant‘s second assignment of error is not well-taken.
{¶ 19} The judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. This case is remanded to the Lucas County Department of Jobs and Family Services for a hearing on appellee‘s appeal. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to
Judgment affirmed.
Peter M. Handwork, J.
JUDGE
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J.
JUDGE
Thomas J. Osowik, J.
JUDGE
CONCUR.
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio‘s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are аdvised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court‘s web site at: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/?source=6.