*1
Hospice
Appellee
Appellant,
v.
Hulsmeyer,
Southwest
and Cross —
Cross-Appellees.
Appellants
al.,
Ohio,
et
Hulsmeyer Hospice
Ohio,
of Southwest
as
[Cite
Inc.,
23, 201 4 Decided December Kennedy, J.
I. Introduction (1) by Hospice of discretionary appeal opinion In this we address officer, Killian, chief executive Ohio, Hospice’s (“Hospice”), Joseph Inc. Southwest (2) (“Brookdale”), Patricia by a cross-appeal Inc. Living, Brookdale Senior (3) the First District Court case from a certified-conflict Hulsmeyer, whether “an appeals court of conflict certified Appeals. entity work government perform by person individual used or another report suspected an intention to or indicate services [must] a claim Health to state to the Ohio Director of nursing home resident neglect of 3721.24(A).” for retaliation under R.C. Appellants and cross-appellees assert the following proposition of law: “R.C. 3721.24 and 3721.22 are related statutes and, together should be read together, when read a claim for retaliation under *2 requires R.C. 3721.24 a person reporting to make that report to the Director of Health.” cross-appeal, Hulsmeyer On following proposition asserts the of law: “If
{¶ 2} § protects 3721.24 only employees who persons reports make Health, of a resident to the Director of then persons make such to an employer, family resident, to a member enforcement, law or to appropriate persons permitted entities must be assert claims retaliation in violation public policy.” Initially, we address an issue the certified regarding question that was not by any party raised and does not change the outcome in this case but that we believe needs to be addressed to clarity ensure the of our holding. The issue certified as in being conflict contemplates reporting suspected abuse or a “nursing home resident.” R.C. 3721.24 discusses abuse of a “resi- dent,” 3721.21(F) and “resident” is in resident, defined as “a including patient, former patient, resident or or deceased resident or patient long-term of a added.) care or a facility residential care facility.” (Emphasis Accordingly, we modify the issue certified as follows:
Must an employee or another by individual used a person government entity perform work or services make a indicate an intention to report suspected abuse or neglect of a long-term-care-facility or a residential-care-facility resident to the Ohio Director of Health to state a 3721.24(A)? claim for retaliation under R.C. We answer the question certified negative and hold that an
employee or other person used to perform work or services who reports or indicates an intention to report suspected of a long-term-care- facility or a residential-care-facility resident is not required report or indicate an intent to report the suspected abuse or neglect to the Ohio director of health in order to state a claim for retaliatory discharge under R.C. 3721.24. Because we that Hulsmeyer hold cognizable has stated a retaliatory-discharge claim under we decline to address her cross-appeal. Accordingly, affirm we judgment of the court appeals.
II. Facts and History Procedural Hospice is an organization provides nursing care for persons who are terminally ill. Hospice does not facility have its own to provide inpatient care in live. In they where patients care to Instead, nursing it southwest Ohio. owned facility care of a residential to residents care Hospice provided woman. 81-year-old Brookdale, Cinquina, Pat including to dismiss on a motion were resolved claims Because 6}{¶ material case, as true all accept we claim, reviewing this failure to state favor. inferences her all reasonable and construe complaint in her allegations (1988). In 190, 192, Co., Milk v. Lawson Mitchell manag- case registered-nurse as Hulsmeyer Patricia hired Hospice April aAs team manager. to team later, promoted was Eight months er. monitored the Hospice patients care of Hulsmeyer oversaw the manager, patient-care At an October nurses and aides. Hospice of other work bruising Cinquina noticed on that she had nurse indicated meeting, Hospice had caused the by Brookdale’s staff that abuse or that she *3 cell to aide, phone that had used her Brown, divulged she Rachel bruises. to pictures forwarded the body. Brown Cinquina’s of on pictures bruising take meeting at the advised nurse and staff doctor Hospice A Hulsmeyer’s phone. family of Cinquina’s and notify to Brookdale obligated that she was Hulsmeyer and called Brookdale Hulsmeyer immediately neglect. abuse or suspected the Brookdale’s director Cindy Spaunagle, to neglect abuse or suspected the reported and then contact Cinquina examine indicated that she would nursing, informed Isha Hulsmeyer then the examination. daughter after Cinquina’s neglect. abuse or Abdullah, Hospice, suspected of the the chief clinical officer office, Cinquina’s daughter informed Hulsmeyer after she left Abdullah’s And or neglect. abuse suspected care, Cinquina’s to discuss meeting at Brookdale At a November {¶ 7} Cinquina’s bruising that photo around so passed cell was phone Brown’s nurses, Hulsmeyer, Spaunagle, were Attending meeting could be seen. others. daughter, son and and Cinquina’s claimed in complaint, Abdullah Hulsmeyer’s to the assertion Contrary
{¶ 8} until she abuse or suspected that she not learn of the a did deposition Hulsmeyer that Abdullah claimed employee. a call from a Brookdale received suspected not first policy by Hospice’s company violated Hospice management. Hulsmeyer. The termination terminated Hospice On November abuse, states, ‘All suspected that Hospice “policy letter stated will of children be abuse patients and exploitation ” gives letter three reasons CEO/designee.’ immediately reported (1) to be taken photos Cinquina discharge: Hulsmeyer permitted (2) power attorney, from a with receiving authorization without of the Cinquina’s daughter notified Brookdale and (3) neglect without first notifying Hospice, Hospice’s violation of policy, Hulsmeyer improperly photos shared the at a patient-care conference discuss care, Cinquina’s which was attended staff from Hospice both and Brookdale Cinquina’s family, before informing Hospice of the letter, On the termination next to the word following “Comments” handwritten statement by Hulsmeyer:
I agree do not with the above I provided guidance statement. was not by my superiors regards policy regarding suspected abuse/ne- I glect. reported the concerns that brought my were attention on 10/19 Abdulla[h], to Isha I CCO. asked her for direction on how to handle the I situation. told her that social work and the team I stated should [doctor] obligated and was to notify facility and the of the family concerns. She did not discourage doing me so.
I did not photos authorize patient be taken time. Hulsmeyer filed a civil action seeking damages against Hospice, Joseph Killian, and Brookdale. The complaint alleged that she had a statutory retaliato- ry-discharge claim under R.C. 3721.24 and common-law wrongful-discharge against Hospice and Killian for her for firing reporting suspected abuse or against for inducing Hospice Killian, Brookdale to fire her. Hospice, and Brookdale filed motions to dismiss alleging Hulsmeyer’s statutory retaliatory-discharge claim failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The motions to dismiss alleged that an employee may retaliatory- file *4 claim under discharge R.C. 3721.24 if the only employee the reported suspected neglect health, abuse or to the Ohio director of which Hulsmeyer did not do. The trial court agreed and granted the motions to dismiss regarding Hulsmeyer’s retaliatory-discharge claims under R.C. 3721.24. trial court also held that Hulsmeyer’s common-law claim wrongful-discharge failed to state a claim because 3721.24 an adequate was statutory remedy protect society’s in interests encouraging employees to report suspected neglect. abuse or Hulsmeyer appealed. The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s
{¶ 12}
in
judgment
part and
it in part.
appeals
affirmed
The court of
reversed
trial
the
judgment
court’s
Hulsmeyer’s
the extent that it dismissed
statutory retaliato-
ry-discharge claim. The court of appeals
plain
held that the
language
3721.24(A) does not require
employee
to report suspected
abuse or
neglect
the Ohio director of health in
protected
order to be
However,
retaliation.
appeals
the court of
affirmed the trial court
judgment
that it
the extent
dismissed
common-law
claim.
wrongful-discharge
Killian,
discretionary appeal
joint
Brookdale’s
accepted Hospice,
We
{¶ 13}
{¶ 14} report an intention to indicating ees who are terminated residential-care-facility long-term-care-facility suspected abuse suspected abuse or report is whether the question residents. The retaliatory- cognizable in to state a made to the director of health order must be claim. discharge (hereinafter collectively as Killian, referred to Hospice, and Brookdale
“defendants”) because it does not indicate argue ambiguous that R.C. 3721.24 is suspected abuse or report report to whom an must or intend to employee it in Therefore, interpret by reading we should R.C. 3721.24 argue, defendants or indicate employee report with R.C. 3721.22 and hold that must pari materia health report an intention to claim under R.C. 3721.24. cognizable retaliatory-discharge order to have a that there is no need to R.C. 3721.24 interpret counters 16} {¶ limit plain language report because its does not to whom Hulsmeyer argues in her Aternatively, cross-appeal, must be made. employee cognizable retaliatory-discharge if the court holds that an has a report if or intends to only employee reports under R.C. 3721.24 health, director of then the court should of action if the recognize wrongful-discharge a common-law cause to make the making intending suffers retaliation other than the director of health. someone
A. R.C. 3721.22 and 3721.24 822, No. which Assembly passed the General Am.Sub.H.B. Laws, IV, Part enacted R.C. 3721.22 and 3721.24. Am.Sub.H.B. 6692. 3721.24, our begin analysis by examining provision We provision argue pivotal and R.C. defendants question, construing R.C. 3721.24. states: R.C. 3721.22
(A) suspects who knows or that a professional No licensed health neglected, property or or that a resident’s has resident has been abused aby long-term facility individual used care misappropriated, by any been residents, or residential facility provide care services to shall fail report knowledge or suspicion the director health.
(B) resident, Any person, including a who knows or that a suspects resident has been abused or neglected, or that a resident’s property been misappropriated, by any individual aby long-term facility used care or facility residents, residential care to provide may services to knowledge or suspicion the director health.
(C) who in Any person good abuse, faith reports suspected neglect, or misappropriation health, to the director of provides information during investigation abuse, of suspected or neglect, misappropriation conducted director, by the participates or in a hearing conducted under section 3721.23 of the subject Revised Code is not to criminal prosecution, liable in damages action, in a tort or subject other civil or to professional disciplin- ary action because of or injury person loss to or property allegedly arising from the making report, information, of the provision of or participation the hearing.
(D) (A) If the director has reason to believe that a violation of division occurred, this section has the director may report the suspected violation to the appropriate professional licensing authority and to attorney general, county prosecutor, or other appropriate law enforcement official.
(E) No person shall knowingly make a false allegation of abuse or neglect of a resident or misappropriation of resident’s property, or knowingly swear or affirm the truth of a false allegation, when the allegation is made for the purpose of incriminating another. added.)
(Emphasis R.C. 3721.24 states: (A) No person government entity shall against retaliate an employee or another individual by used or government entity to perform who, faith, work or services in good makes a suspected abuse of a resident or misappropriation resident; property of indicates an intention to make such a report; provides during information an investigation abuse, of suspected neglect, misappropriation conduct- health; ed the director of in a participates hearing conducted under section 3721.23 of the Revised Code or in any other administrative or judicial proceedings abuse, pertaining to the suspected neglect, or misap- propriation. division, For purposes of this retaliatory actions include discharging, demoting, transferring the employee person, *6 242 or employee of the evaluation performance work negative a
preparing benefits, employ- of the privileges or work pay, reducing person, other against to retaliate action intended any other person, or other ee person. or other a resident (B) against retaliate entity shall government or person No indicates abuse, neglect, misappropriation; or reports suspected investiga- during information a report; to make such intention conducted abuse, misappropriation or neglect, of alleged tion of the Revised section 3721.23 director; hearing in a under participates or pertaining judicial proceeding or other administrative any Code or any on whose behalf abuse, misappropriation; neglect, actions. For entity takes of those government person abuse, division, verbal threats retaliatory actions include of this purposes withholding assignment, of room language, change harsh manner, action any other services, timely in a provide failure to care the resident. against intended retaliate
(C) against person government action Any has a cause of (A) (B) of this violation of division resulting for harm entity occurred, award may the court If it finds that violation section. court costs and may The court award injunctive and order relief. damages party. attorney’s prevailing reasonable fees added.) (Emphasis Statutory
B. Construction to the give is to ascertain and effect statutory construction goal Hairston, 2004- 101 Ohio St.3d Assembly. State v. intent the General ¶ Weaver, 621, 64 Ohio-969, 471, 11, v. 66 Ohio St. citing Slingluff 804 N.E.2d the intent of the (1902), determining of the paragraph syllabus. 574 one N.E. and the statutory language purpose Assembly, “we must first look General 2011- Machining, 129 Ohio St.3d Sutton v. Tomco accomplished.” to be ¶ Ohio-2723, 12. 950 N.E.2d statutory interpre- the rules of statutory ambiguous, language When v. legislature. Wingate to determine the intent applied
tation must be
(1979).
rule
55, 58,
pan
770
“The in
materia
396 N.E.2d
Hordge, 60 Ohio St.2d
some doubt or
statutes where
may
interpreting
construction
be used
581, 585,
72
St.3d
Klopfleisch,
ex rel. Herman v.
ambiguity exists.” State
Webb,
(1995),
Auto. Ins. Co. v.
54 Ohio
995
Farm Mut.
citing
651 N.E.2d
State
Bd.
63-64,
(1990);
Cty.
rel.
v. Allen
132
State ex
Celebrezze
562 N.E.2d
St.3d
“
(1987).
‘In
Commrs.,
24, 27-28,
reading
512 N.E.2d
32 Ohio St.3d
in pari
statutes
materia and
them
construing
together,
this court must
give
”
reasonable construction that provides
proper
effect to each statute.’
v.
Blair
Trustees,
Sugarcreek Twp.
151,
{¶ 23}
conveys a clear and definite meaning,
rely
we must
on what
the General
Assembly
has said.”
Coupling
330,
Jones v. Action
& Equip.,
98 Ohio St.3d
¶
C. R.C. 3721.24 Is Not Ambiguous
Defendants argue that R.C. 3721.24
ambiguous
it
because
does not
indicate to whom a report of suspected abuse or neglect must be made and that
when R.C. 3721.24 is construed in pari
materia with R.C.
it is clear that
in order to
claim,
file
retaliatory-discharge
a report
neglect must be made to the director of health. Defendants cite Sheet Metal
Assn.,
Workers’ Internatl.
Local Union No. 33 v.
Refrig., Heating
Gene’s
& Air
Inc., 122
Conditioning,
Ohio
4115.05 requires paying the prevailing wage to an employee “whose work is not performed on the actual project site but who works on materials that will be used ¶ in or in connection with project.” at Id. 25. The court found R.C. 4115.05 ambiguous be on this issue because is no in “[t]here reference R.C. 4115.05 to where the work must be performed, i.e. whether it must directly be on the ¶ project performed site or be off-site.” Id. at 29. The court construed “the language of the entire prevailing-wage statutory along scheme with the related regulations” in concluding that the General Assembly did not intend for employ ¶ ers to pay the prevailing wage to persons who do not work on-site. Id. at 38. Assn, We find Sheet Metal Workers’ Internatl. to be distinguishable. General Assembly, statute, “[T]he enacting is assumed to have been
aware of
statutory provisions
concerning
subject
matter of the enact
ment even if they are found in separate sections of the Code.” Meeks v.
Papadopulos,
187, 191-192,
62 Ohio St.2d
(1980),
General
how to make
Assembly knows
that the General
demonstrates
part
not another
part
latter
modification
not to make that
and has chosen
that modification
184,
“to the director Assembly enacted Because the General found in R.C. 3721.24. of health is not bill, that the absence of presume we and 3721.24 the same R.C. 3721.22 *8 abuse or report, suspected or intent to report, in that a R.C. 3721.24 requirement If intentional. the General of health was must be made to the director neglect report- who only employees to those protection had to afford Assembly intended neglect abuse or ed, report, suspected an intention to or indicated “to the director of health” health, by inserting so the words of it could have done 3721.24(A), the by incorporating requirement or R.C. “report” after the word by judicial add those words It neither. And we will not from 3721.22. did R.C. (2001) (Cook, 271, 291, 719 Scarpelli, 91 Ohio St.3d fiat. See Clark (“the say; to what the law should J., role of a court is not decide dissenting) as it has been rather, says is to what the law interpret the role of this court ” sic]). Assembly [emphasis written the General and Furthermore, of R.C. 3721.22 reporting requirements the different 28} providing In addition to purposes. with their different 3721.24 are consistent persons report criminal to prosecution from civil lawsuits and immunity both of obligations reporting addresses the neglect, or R.C. 3721.22 suspected abuse profession- It that licensed health explicitly requires or suspected abuse R.C. “to the director of health.” neglect abuse or report suspected als “may” 3721.22(A). including a resident” “[a]ny person, It also 3721.22(B). of “to the director health.” neglect abuse or report suspected to director of health is that such be made the requiring reports of purpose The investigate, to make authority obligation of health has the that the director to law enforcement. See R.C. of findings abuse findings, report 3721.23.
245
contrast,
purpose
protect
the
of R.C. 3721.24 is to
persons
retaliatory discharge
of
reporting suspected
long-term-care-
abuse or
facility and
St.
residential-care-facility
generally
Mary’s
residents. See
Dolan v.
Home,
(1st
App.3d
IV. Conclusion plain language protects employees R.C. 3721.24 persons used to work perform or services from retaliation reporting indicating report intention long-term-care residents require facilities or residential-care facilities and does not that the report be Therefore, made the director of health. we question answer certified negative hold that used to perform work or services who or indicates an intention to suspected abuse neglect of long-term-care-facility or residential-care-facility resident is not required or indicate an to report intent or neglect to the Ohio director of retaliatory health order to state a claim for discharge under 3721.24. case, Hulsmeyer’s In this
{¶ Brookdale and to the triggered resident’s children of R.C. protection 3721.24. Therefore, the court err in appeals reversing did not portion the trial court’s judgment dismissed claim for retaliation under R.C. 3721.24. Because a cognizable retaliatory-discharge under *9 3721.24, R.C. we to decline consider cross-appeal asserting her that she has a wrongful-discharge common-law claim. Accordingly, we affirm the of of judgment appeals the court and remand
{¶ 32} the cause the trial with to court instructions to reinstate Hulsmeyer’s retaliatory- However, discharge claim under 3721.24. we have although determined the “report” mentioned in R.C. 3721.24 does to not need be a to the report retaliation, trigger protection director of health to we judgment make no on of claim. Hulsmeyer’s merits We therefore remand this to the trial cause proceedings court for further opinion. consistent with this
Judgment affirmed and cause remanded. O’Neill, JJ., O’Connor, C.J., Yarbrough, Lanzinger, concur. J., separately. concurs Pfeifer, J., dissents.
French, District, Stephen J., sitting Appellate A. of the Sixth Yarbrough, J. O’Donnell, J.,
Pfeifer,
concurring.
every
part
and almost
other
judgment, syllabus,
I
in the
concur
{¶ 33}
French, however,
that Patricia
opinion.
agree
I
with Justice
majority
wrongful discharge
claim for
to assert a common-law
should be allowed
Machining,
v. Tomco
See Sutton
public policy.
violation
153,
French, dissenting. affirmative, question I would answer the certified-conflict Because {¶ 34} I respectfully dissent. view, only of action R.C. 3721.24 arises my statutory a cause under or or perform reports
after an used work services employee of a report suspected intention to resident indicates Nevertheless, I of law adopt proposition director of health. would Ohio that an Patricia and hold cross-appeal raised a or report suspected indicates intention not to such as appropriate person, resident the director health but another facility, or residential-care reporter’s employer, long-term-care facility enforcement, may or law a common-law claim family, resident’s assert policy. in violation of wrongful discharge public Assembly together, part R.C. 3721.22to 3721.26 as General enacted comprehensive governing reports long-term-
of a scheme abuse 822,143 care-facility residential-care-facility residents. Am.Sub.H.B. No. Laws, here, IV, Part 6689-6694. As relevant particularly 3721.23,and 3721.24are interrelated. 3721.22(A) requires professional” “licensed health health, resident to the director of
known
abuse
3721.22(B)
resident,
including
permits any
person,
whereas R.C.
to the director of health. The director
known
*10
247
“receive, review,
investigate allegations
and
turn,
is, in
to
required
health
allegations.
those
findings regarding
and to make
of a resident”
abuse or
the director of
3721.23(A).
report to
good-faith
makes a
Any person who
investiga-
3721.22,
the director’s
during
information
provides
under R.C.
health
director
by
conducted
3721.23,
hearing
in a
participates
tion under R.C.
in a civil
damages
prosecution,
from criminal
is immune
under R.C. 3721.23
3721.22(C).
action,
discipline. R.C.
professional
person
for a
protection
additional
3721.24
3721.24(A)
retaliation
prohibits
a resident. R.C.
suspected abuse
makes
work or services who
perform
used to
person
an
against
resident,
an
of a
indicates
abuse or
good-faith report
during
investigation
information
report, provides
to make such a
intention
3721.23,
in a
or participates
under R.C.
the director of health
conducted
judicial proceedings
3721.23 or other administrative
hearing under R.C.
3721.24(C)
a cause
establishes
to the
pertaining
retaliation.
resulting
prohibited
of action for harm
person
to
3721.24’s silence as
crux of this case lies R.C.
report
or indicate an intention
report
whom a
must
Despite
from retaliation.
statutory protection
in order to claim
3721.24 is
issue,
concludes that R.C.
majority
silence on that
statute’s
not
or indicate
intention
plaintiff
and holds that a
need
unambiguous
to have a
of health
order
report suspected
contrast, I
that the statute is
R.C. 3721.24. In
conclude
cognizable
under
3721.24(A)
recipient
regarding
in R.C.
ambiguous because the silence
Sheet Metal
subject
varying interpretations.
renders the statute
Assn.,
Refrigeration, Heating
Internatl.
Local Union No. 33 Gene’s
Workers’
circumstances
intent.
legislature’s
construction to determine
consequences
particular
subject
pari
matter in
to the same
pertaining
also construe statutes
Id. We
¶ 38,
ex
citing
Id. at
State
carry
legislative
out
intent.”
materia “to discover
3721.23 abuse or reports suspected a who from retaliation protects 3721.24 R.C. adjudicatory investigatory in the resultant participates or who and/or of abuse or reports not provide Revised Code does process. The Moreover, by immunity provided the than director of health. the recipients 3721.22(C) established R.C. against retaliation prohibition and the partic- also from neglect, of abuse or but only reports not 3721.24 arise 3721.23, that, results from to R.C. investigatory process pursuant in the ipation I conclude Reading together, these statutes to the director of health. an of report, indication requires that a claim under R.C. 3721.24 statutory v. Grande Point of health. See Arsham-Brenner report, intent to No. 2000 WL *6 Community, Cuyahoga 8th Dist. Health Care 2000). (July 3721.24, in from the related of R.C. isolation majority’s reading The on the of a recipient that there is no limitation whatsoever
provisions, suggests
majority’s reading,
employ-
the
an
of
abuse or
Under
far beyond
from retaliation would extend
statutory
protection
ee’s
entitlement
appropriate recipi-
abuse to obvious and
employee’s reporting
the
of
ents,
family.
example,
resident’s
For
employee’s supervisor
like the
the
upon casually relating suspicions
entitled to
employee
protection
would be
station,
a news
or an
employee’s spouse,
neighbor,
through
between R.C. 3721.22
message
light
overlap
online
board.
allega-
statutory responsibility
investigating
the director of health’s
3721.24,1
in
cannot
neglect,
agree
and the silence R.C.
tions
resident
Assembly
application.
intended such a broad
the General
3721.24, I would hold that
my
regarding
conclusion
Despite
common-law claim for
dis-
Hulsmeyer’s complaint
cognizable
wrongful
stated a
wrongful-discharge
in
A
charge
public policy.
public-policy
violation of
(1)
public policy
a clear
is manifested
requires proof
following
elements:
constitution,
regulation,
or federal
in a statute or administrative
state
(2)
law,
plaintiffs
under circumstances like the
dismissing
common
(3)
public policy
conduct related to the
jeopardize
public policy,
would
(4)
employer
and
lacked
employer
plaintiff,
motivated the
to dismiss the
Rizkana,
Collins v.
overriding
justification
business
for the dismissal.
legitimate
(1995),
65, 69-70,
citing
Graley,
Painter v.
70 Ohio
St.3d
{¶
the
that
absence of a common-law claim
jeopardize
public
does not
the
policy
encouraging
First,
abuse
reporting
resident
consistent with their
to
arguments
they
the trial court and the court of appeals,
that R.C. 3721.24
a
argue
sufficient and appropriate remedy to vindicate
public policy.
appeals
The court
held that
not
agreed
Hulsmeyer
was
to
claim,
entitled maintain a public-policy wrongful-discharge
had a
because she
remedy by way
statutory
{¶ policy public encouraging of abuse and is not jeopardized in the because, of a public-policy claim, absence wrongful-discharge even without a R.C. any under could have reported suspicion reasonable or pursuant Statute, abuse to her employer to Ohio’sWhistleblower however, 4113.52. Review of Hulsmeyer’s complaint, demonstrates the inapplica- of that bility statute. R.C. 4113.52 when applies employee’s employment in the course becomes aware employee
an or regulation ordinance any statute or state or federal of a violation authority employer employee’s that the of a subdivision political a the violation is believes correct, reasonably employee and the harm physical an imminent risk of to cause likely criminal offense that is improper a or an safety, felony, health or public a hazard to persons for contribution. solicitation 4113.52(A). that she Hulsmeyer’s complaint indication But there is no risk of physical to cause an imminent likely offense that was a criminal employer that her an solicitation for contribution
harm,
felony,
improper
Rather,
likely
that she believed the
Hulsmeyer alleged
authority
remedy.
had
Foley
from a
excessively tightened bag
bruising
was
cause of
resident’s
4113.52(D)
Furthermore,
from retaliation
protects
catheter.
prosecuting
regulatory
her
or to a
employer
who has made a
Hospice
terminated her
authority,
Hulsmeyer alleges
whereas
allegedly
informing
and for
not
Cinquina’s family
to Pat
not
Hulsmeyer’s complaint
do
alleged
the facts as
Hospice. Accordingly,
under R.C. 4113.52.
availability
protection
of whistle-blower
demonstrate the
12(B)(6)
this case on
motions
As the trial court decided
Civ.R.
not
for determi-
dismiss,
actually
ripe
retaliation
occurred is
question
whether
true,
are
nation,
allegations
permitting
if
of retaliation
but
*13
would
Hulsmeyer’s reporting
retaliation for
alleged
3721.24, even
R.C. 3721.22 and
contrary
public policy underlying
to the
be
Inc.,
Machining,
of health. See Sutton v. Tomco
without a
153,
Robert A. Robert cross-appellant. and appellee Ellis, L.L.P., Vance, and appellant M. and Victoria L. Audey,
Tucker Susan Brookdale Inc. cross-appellee Living, Senior Whittaker, Shohl, L.L.P., Hawkins,
Dinsmore & W. and Faith C. Michael Ohio, and cross-appellees Hospice Joseph of Southwest appellants Killian. Gittes, Vardaro, Law P. Group, Jeffrey urging
The Gittes Fredrick M. Employment Lawyers affirmance for amicus curiae Ohio Association. Center, Inc., Brennan, Henry, and Law Kristen Disability Rights Andrew Ohio, Kirkman, urging Disability Rights
and Michael affirmance for amici curiae AARP, Center, Program, National Senior Citizens Law National Law Health Disability Rights National Network.
Disciplinary
v. Hernandez.
Counsel
Disciplinary
Hernandez,
Counsel v.
[Cite as
Ohio, with the unauthorized of law for practice distributing business cards representing criminal, herself as an attorney practicing family, the areas of *14 juvenile, law, and immigration preparing and for documents and correspondence on behalf of Miguel regarding Galan-Rubio matters before the immigration Department Security, Homeland United States Citizenship Immigration (“USCIS”), Services Immigration the Executive Office for Review Cleveland Court”). Immigration Court (“Immigration Hernandez is not admitted practice of law Ohio or other state. Hernandez received relator’s initial letter of left a voicemail inquiry
message following day, stating for relator the that she was several experiencing