Hasan v. Franklin Cty. Medicaid Dept.Hasan v. Franklin Cty. Medicaid Dept.
Rendered on May 12, 2026
On brief: Mohammed A. Hasan, pro se.
Argued: Mohammed A. Hasan.
On brief: Shayla D. Favors, Prosecuting Attorney, and Eli F. Redfern for Franklin County Medicaid Department.
Argued: Eli F. Redfern.
On brief: Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Julie E. Brigner for Ohio Department of Medicaid.
Argued: Kelly Richardson.
On brief: Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, Megan F. Bosak, and Nicholas K. Gonano for United Healthcare Community Plan.
Argued: Megan F. Bosak.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
MENTEL, J.
{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Mohammed A. Hasan, appeals from an August 6, 2025 entry granting the motions to dismiss of defendants-appellees, United Healthcare Community Plan of Ohio, Inc (“United“) and Franklin County Medicaid Department (“FCMD“). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶ 2} On February 28, 2025, Hasan filed a complaint in Franklin County Court of Common Pleas against FCMD, United, and defendant-appellee, Ohio Department of Medicaid (“ODM“).
{¶ 3} According to the complaint, Hasan holds a “Medicaid card” and suffers from various health problems, which require treatment. (Compl. at 1, Introduction.) Hasan contends that appellees monitored his phone calls and internet as well as tried to force him to live in a “bug-infested apartment.” (Compl. at ¶ 5, 9.) Hasan alleges FCMD and ODM violated Section 21(A) of the Ohio Constitution by “forc[ing] medical insurance on [him].” (Compl. at ¶ 7.) Hasan goes on to allege that appellees have denied him access to various medical treatments and coverage from specialists. (Compl. at ¶ 5-11.) “[FCMD] and [ODM] imposed health insurance plans on me to manage my health, but this plan did not provide the services.” (Compl. at ¶ 8.) Hasan contends that FCMD and ODM “have not accepted prior authorization, to follow up with a doctor specialist out of the state of Ohio,” and United and FCMD “caused all doors to be closed” concerning treatment of one of his unidentified health problems. (Compl. at ¶ 13.)
{¶ 4} Hasan seeks “health protection and safety from the Actions of [appellees] [as it] affect[ed] [his] physical health and psychological state.” (Compl. at ¶ 15.) Hasan also demands that appellees do not interfere in his medical affairs, and they delete all of his medical records. (Compl. at ¶ 16-17.) Finally, Hasan demands that FCMD and ODM provide transportation to future visits to medical appointments, reimbursement of past expenses, and authorization for a follow-up visit with a neurosurgeon or treatment in Wisconsin. (Compl. at ¶ 18-19.)
{¶ 5} On May 2, 2025, United filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to
{¶ 6} On August 6, 2025, the trial court granted the motions to dismiss of United and FCMD finding that Hasan has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under
{¶ 7} Hasan filed a timely notice of appeal.
II. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
{¶ 8} Appellant assigns the following as trial court error:
[1.] The lower court did not give solicitude that my main demand in this lawsuit is 19 and 20.
. . .
[2.] The evidence and proof that the defendants violated Article I, Section 21(A) of the Ohio Constitution would be complete if the court concluded from afar, in general, the defendants’ way of style in complaints No. 8 and No. 12, with the (EXPLANATION) 8 and 12, and summed it up as direct or indirect coercion, and compared it to Medicaid or plan coverage intention to avoid paying for the necessary surgery, which I needed, so that I could be compelled to pay for this procedure and have it done.
. . .
[3.] The lower court did not give solicitude to the Franklin County Medicaid Department and their influence for example, Carestar of Ohio Or if I may say so, it is a loyalty to the political authority that the Franklin County Medicaid Department follows Violated the law adm Code 5160:1-2-01(L)(2)(c) in order to make profits by the Long-Term Care Waiver program.
(Sic passim.) (Emphasis in original.) (Appellant‘s Brief at 24, 26-27.)
III. LEGAL ANALYSIS
A. Appellant‘s Assignments of Error
{¶ 9} As Hasan‘s assignments of error are interrelated, we will address them together.
B. Standard of Review
{¶ 10} A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under
{¶ 11} We review a trial court‘s grant of dismissal under
C. Analysis
{¶ 12} Upon review, we agree with the trial court‘s assessment that Hasan has only identified a single cause of action, which states that appellees violated Section 21(A) of the Ohio Constitution. Section 21(A) directs that “[n]o federal, state, or local law or rule shall compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in a health care system.” “Compel” is defined to “include[] the levying of penalties or fines.”
{¶ 13} Here, Hasan has failed to allege a federal, state, or local law or rule that compelled him, either directly or indirectly, to participate in Medicaid or any other healthcare system. Moreover, Hasan has also failed to provide any allegation or information
IV. CONCLUSION
{¶ 14} Having overruled Hasan‘s assignments of error, we affirm judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
Judgment affirmed.
BEATTY BLUNT and EDELSTEIN, JJ., concur.
_____________