Farmer v. Healthcare BridgeFarmer v. Healthcare Bridge
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: September 16, 2021
Appearances:
Cavitch, Familio & Durkin, Co., L.P.A., and Komlavi Atsou, for appellant.
LISA B. FORBES, J.:
{¶ 1} Tamara Farmer (“Farmer”) appeals from the Shaker Heights Municipal Court’s journal entry finding that she “failed to prove her claim by a preponderance of the evidence” and granting judgment in favor of defendant Healthcare Bridge (“Healthcare”). After reviewing the facts of the case and pertinent law, we affirm the lower court’s judgment.
{¶ 2} On November 18, 2020, Farmer filed a “Small Claim Complaint” in the Shaker Heights Municipal Court against her former employer Healthcare alleging “none [sic] payment for services rendered” in the amount of $5,400. The court held a trial before a magistrate, at which both parties appeared and Healthcare disputed Farmer’s claim. On January 14, 2021, the magistrate issued a decision stating “Judgment in favor of Defendant at Plaintiff’s costs.” Farmer filed a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law, which the magistrate issued on February 1, 2021. Excerpts pertinent to this appeal follow:
Findings of Fact
* * * Farmer worked as a home health aide for [Healthcare]. In 2018 [Farmer] contacted the United States Department of Labor reporting that [Healthcare] underpaid [her] for overtime hours [she] worked. The Department of Labor conducted an audit on [Healthcare] for [Farmer’s] wages from 2016 to 2018. The Department of Labor found [Farmer] was entitled to additional overtime wages totaling $1,166.73. [Healthcare] paid the Department of Labor for the back wages and the Department of Labor sent a check to [Farmer] totaling that amount. [Farmer] did not deposit the check because [she] disputes the determination of the Department of Labor.
Conclusions of Law
The burden of proving a claim by a preponderance of the evidence rests on the Plaintiff. Tyler v. Monro Brake Tire Serv., [2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24591,] 2012-Ohio-511, ¶ 4. Therefore, the Plaintiff has to show the accusations outlined in a small claims petition are valid. Id. Here, the Department of Labor performed an audit and found [Farmer] was entitled to $1,166.73 in overtime wages. [Healthcare] properly adhered to the Department of Labor’s findings by paying the agency that amount. [Farmer] failed to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Department of Labor miscalculated the amount she is owed in overtime wages. Furthermore, [Farmer] failed to show [Healthcare] owes her any additional back overtime wages.
- Farmer did not sign Form WH-58 and did not cash [Healthcare’s] check, and as such, Farmer did not waive her claim against [Healthcare] and whether or not the Department of Labor (“D.O.L.”) miscalculated the amount Farmer is owed in overtime wages is irrelevant to Farmer’s right to seek damages in this Court.
- Farmer’s claims that she is owed more than the D.O.L.’s calculated amount of $1,166.73 is supported by the paystubs attached to the Complaint, federal law, and state law.
{¶ 4} On March 19, 2021, the court overruled Farmer’s objections to the magistrate’s decision and modified the findings of fact and conclusions of law as follows:
The Court finds that [Farmer] failed to prove her claim by a preponderance of the evidence. [Farmer] submitted two exhibits at trial. “Plaintiff’s Exhibit A” is characterized in [Farmer’s] Objection as a “narrative setting forth a detailed explanation regarding the basis of her alleged damages.” “Plaintiff’s Exhibit B” [is] paystubs from May, 2017 to March, 2018. The exhibits presented at trial as well as the testimony of [Farmer] failed to establish her claim by the preponderance of the evidence. The Court further finds that [Healthcare] admitted that it owed $1,166.73 to [Farmer], the amount which [Healthcare] paid to the [D.O.L.] prior to the filing of [Farmer’s] small claim. Therefore, [Farmer] is entitled to $1,166.73 in overtime wages. [Healthcare] having already satisfied it obligation to [Farmer] by paying this amount to the [D.O.L.], the Court orders Judgment in favor of [Healthcare] with respect to the remainder of [Farmer’s] claim. * * *
{¶ 5} It is from this order that Farmer appeals raising two assignments of error for our review:
Assignment of Error No. 1: The Municipal Court erred when it held that [Farmer] is bound by the settlement agreement negotiated by the [D.O.L.] with Farmer’s former employer and that the employer
Assignment of Error No. 2: The Municipal Court erred when it held that Farmer failed to prove her claim for nonpayment of overtime by the preponderance of the evidence.
II. Law and Analysis
{¶ 6} Pursuant to
{¶ 7} In the instant case, the municipal court held a bench trial before a magistrate. In granting judgment in favor of Healthcare, the municipal court found that “[t]he exhibits presented at trial as well as the testimony of [Farmer] failed to establish her claim by the preponderance of the evidence.” It is undisputed that Farmer did not file the trial transcript in this case. This transcript is necessary for resolution of Farmer’s assignments of error, both of which challenge the court’s
{¶ 8} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry out this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to
LISA B. FORBES, JUDGE
MARY J. BOYLE, A.J., and
ANITA LASTER MAYS, J., CONCUR