Cyr v. State Med. Bd. of OhioCyr v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio
Rendered on January 6, 2022
On brief: Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP, Daniel S. Zinsmaster, and Gregory A. Tapocsi, for appellant. Argued: Gregory A. Tapocsi.
On brief: Dave Yost, Attorney General, and James T. Wakley, for appellee. Argued: James T. Wakley.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
BEATTY BLUNT, J.
{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Melissa M. Cyr, D.O. (“Dr. Cyr” or “appellant“), appeals from a decision and judgment entry of the Franklin Cоunty Court of Common Pleas granting the motion to dismiss of defendant-appellee, State Medical Board of Ohio (“the Board” or “appellee“), and dismissing appellant‘s administrative appeal filed pursuant to
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} The pertinent facts and brief procedural history of this case are largely undisputed. Dr. Cyr, an osteopathiс physician, sought judicial review of the administrative action of the Board wherein her license was revoked, and she was fined $3,000. See
{¶ 3} It is likewise undisputed that the February 10, 2021 order was mailed to Dr. Cyr on February 11, 2021 via certified mail, return receipt requested, and that the return receipt indicates the order was received on February 13, 2021. (Mot. to Dismiss at 2.) Dr. Cyr admits she received the February 10, 2021 order. (Memo Contra at 1.)
{¶ 4} On February 26, 2021, Dr. Cyr filed a notice of appeal of the February 10, 2021 order with the Board. (Mot. to Dismiss at 2.) There is no question that she did not file a notice of appeal with the trial court until April 14, 2021. Id.; Memo Contra at 1.
{¶ 5} On April 16, 2021, the Board filed a motion to dismiss Dr. Cyr‘s administrative appeal on grounds that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the administrative appeal. On May 20, 2021, the trial court granted the Board‘s motion to dismiss, finding that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the
{¶ 6} Dr. Cyr now timely appeals.
II. Assignment of Error
{¶ 7} Appellant assigns one assignment of error for our review:
The Common Pleas Court errеd by not conducting a hearing to address the State Medical Board‘s alleged failure to serve its
R.C. 119.07 Notice of Opportunity for Hearing and thereby wrongfully dismissed Dr. Cyr‘s appeal on grounds that she did not timely file a Notice of Appeal of the Board‘s final adjudication in accordance withR.C. 119.12 .
III. Law and Analysis
A. Standard of Review
{¶ 8} A trial court‘s decision to dismiss an administrative appeal brought pursuant to
B. Law and Analysis
{¶ 9}
Any party desiring to appeal shall file a notice of apрeal with the agency setting forth the order appealed from and stating that the agency‘s order is not supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence and is not in accordanсe with law. * * * The notice of appeal shall also be filed by the appellant with the court. In filing a notice of appeal with the agency or court, the notice that is filed may be either the original notice or a copy of the original notice. Unless otherwise provided by law relating to a particular agency, notices of appeal shall be filed within fifteen days after thе mailing of the notice of the agency‘s order as provided in this section.
(Emphasis added.)
{¶ 10} “In administrative appeals from orders of agencies, the Supreme Court of Ohio has consistently held that failure to comply with the time requirements fоr filing a notice of appeal deprives the common pleas court of jurisdiction and is fatal to the appeal.” Jones v. Ohio Motor Vehicle Dealers Bd., 10th Dist. No. 12AP-785, 2013-Ohio-1212, ¶ 8, citing Sun Refining & Marketing Co. v. Brennan, 31 Ohio St.3d 306, 307 (1987) (further citations omitted). Failure to meet the filing deadline set forth in
{¶ 11} The trial court did not err in dismissing appellant‘s
{¶ 12} In her brief, appellant has cited to numerous cases in support of her proposition that the trial court was required to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether appellant had rebutted the prеsumption of valid service of the notice of opportunity for hearing, notwithstanding appellant‘s failure to file a notice of an appeal of the Board‘s final adjudication order with the trial court. Yet, with one exception, all of the cases cited by appellant are cases concerning service of process in civil lawsuits, not service of notices of oрportunity for hearing in the context of administrative appeals brought pursuant to
{¶ 13} Furthermore, the sole case cited that does involve whether a plaintiff in an
{¶ 15} Appellant‘s reliance on the trial court decisions of Sandhu and Griffith is equally unavailing. First, as argued by the Board, neither the trial court nor this court is bound to follow those trial court decisions. See In re Lebanon Health Care Ctr., 10th Dist. No. 86AP-168, (Aug. 26, 1986) (finding “[a] dеcision of one branch of a common pleas court is not binding upon any other branch of the same court“). Second, and more importantly, each of these cases is wholly distinguishable from the instant matter. In both Sandhu and Griffith, appellants claimed they were not properly served with either the notice of opportunity for hearing or the final adjudication orders due to interception of thеm by staff in their respective offices. See Sandhu v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio, Franklin C.P. No. 07-CVF-17446, (Dec. 2, 2008); Duane L. Griffith, M.D., State Med. Bd. of Ohio, Franklin C.P. No. 13CV-012030 (Aug. 25, 2015). That is not the case before us now.
{¶ 16} Unlike the appellants in Sandhu and Griffith, Dr. Cyr does not claim she was not properly served with the final adjudication order. Indeed, she admits she received the final adjudication order, and it is undisputеd that she timely filed a notice of appeal with the Board. What she failed to do, however, was timely file a notice of appeal with the trial court as required by
{¶ 17} In summation, the failurе to timely file notices of appeal with both the Board and the trial court is fatal to appellant‘s administrative appeal brought pursuant to
{¶ 18} Accordingly, appellant‘s sole assignment of error is overruled.
IV. Disposition
{¶ 19} For the foregoing reasons, we overrule appellant‘s sole assignment of error and affirm the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
Judgment affirmed.
MENTEL and NELSON, JJ., concur.
NELSON, J., retired, of the Tenth Appellate District, assigned to active duty under the authority of the