*1 commit respondent no further misconduct. If respondent violates the condition lifted, stay, stay will be and he will serve the one-year entire suspension. respondent. Costs are taxed to
Judgment accordingly. Lundberg C.J., and Stratton, Cupp, JJ., Moyer, O’Connor, Lanzinger, concur. dissent and would suspend respondent from the
Pfeifer practice of law Ohio for one year but would stay the entire suspension on condition.
Gallagher Petrov, Sharp, Alan M. Sansalone, and Monica A. for relator. Co., L.P.A., Richard C. Alkire, Alkire and Richard C. respondent. Department MedCorp, Inc., Appellee, v. Ohio Family Appellant. Services, of Job and [Cite MedCorp, Inc. v. Dept. of Job Family &
Servs., Ohio St.3d
{¶ 1}
25, concluding
App.R.
and
3(B)(4),
of the Ohio Constitution
Article IV
Section
of
District Court
of the Second
judgment
is in conflict with the
judgment
that its
Petro,
ex rel.
No. 2007
v. State
Greene
May
in David
Ministries
Appeals
1,
II Inc., company provides MedCorp, medical-transport is a Appellee, {¶ 3} Upon an audit qualified patients. ambulance and ambulette services to Medicaid Depart- the Ohio MedCorp of the had submitted 1996 and claims had paid. all claims that been Family ment and Services disallowed of Job $534,719.27 that the repay The ordered department subsequently the disallowed claims. department paid MedCorp had County order to the Franklin Court MedCorp appealed department’s {¶ 4} appeal notice of stated: MedCorp’s Pleas to R.C. 119.12. pursuant Common Code, and 5111.06 of the Ohio Revised “Pursuant to sections 119.12 counsel, Adjudication Inc., hereby and through MedCorp, dated April Family Order the Ohio of Job Services Department issued * * with law and is not is not accordance *. The and substantial evidence.” arguing a motion to dismiss the department The filed its appeal which was grounds upon notice failed MedCorp’s invoke trial based, 119.12, properly and therefore did not required by dismiss, the trial court on the motion to ruling Rather than jurisdiction. department’s issued decision on the merits of the and reversed the order. Franklin department appealed County Appeals The to the Court jurisdiction, question
raised the
of the trial court’s
along with
on the
Ohio,
appeals,
merits. The court of
Derakhshan v.
Med. Bd.
citing
State
07AP-261,
Ill
Pursuant
to R.C.
“[a]ny party desiring
appeal [an
order of an
agency
administrative
shall file a
agency]
setting
notice
with the
forth
the order
from and the
party’s appeal.”
precise
issue before
statutory
us is what the
phrase
party’s appeal”
*3
requires: may
party
this
appealing
providing general
meet
burden
a
simply
that
not in
underlying
statement
order “is
law
and is not
probative,
evidence,” as
and substantial
did in
MedCorp
case,
this
or
specific objections required?
are more
statute,
a
construing
When
we first
examine its
and apply
{¶ 9}
the statute as written when the
is clear
meaning
unambiguous.
See State v.
Lowe,
¶
507,
{¶ 10} “grounds” in this context as or “the foundation basis on which a belief or action rests; (Italics sic.) grounds reason or cause: dismissal.” Random House for (2d Ed.1987) Dictionary 843. Law a Dictionary provides Black’s similar defini- (as tion for “ground”: reason or a point claim something < argument) for > < relies on for validity divorce several for (8th Ed.2004) appeal>.” Black’s Law Dictionary 723. support These definitions “ground the conclusion that a pax-ty’s appeal” is the discrete reason or party x-easonsthat caused the to appeal. Thus, comply must in appealing pax-ty state its
notice of specific legal factual reasons it is why appealing. and/or statute does not must suggest parties present reasons in exacting Rather, pax-ties simply designate objection detail. must explicit they are order, raising to the administrative much agency’s way in that appel- the same lants in a coux-tof must in legal arguments assex-t the form of 16(A)(3) assignments of ex-ror and issues for App.R. and appel- III(1)(B)(4) and law, S.Ct.Prac.R. propositions must advance in this court lants (2)(B)(4). VI audit determina- case, department’s claimed that the MedCorp In this there is no for which methodology statistical-sampling on a flawed
tion was based in its notice manuals. procedural in internal department’s provision a employed when it stated, erred department have “The could MedCorp appeal, finding against its audit methodology support statistical-sampling flawed methodology statistical-sampling a used MedCorp” department or “The that the If believed manuals.” in procedural its internal provided said, statute, simply it could have a specific acted contravention department with” that statute. compliance was not conducted department’s audit “The and all would fairly be called of these statements Any being- argument the precise department notified the court and have advanced. the administrative order allege Allowing evidence” “is not create a result in its notice of would in accordance with law”
“is not
construc
We must avoid
driving
clear intent
the statute.
inconsistent with the
it is *4 substantial probative, and “is not order to succeed on it must meet that standard with law” because not in accordance adopt If we were to of R.C. 119.12. under the virtually every appeal same, words could be used general those position, to the statute. pursuant filed agency an administrative [its] requiring appealing party By specifically intended Assembly clearly in the notice of the General appeal” its conclusion supporting some information provide should appealing party and is not in accordance with law the order is not If every appealing evidence. specifica- further to all without applicable appeals the standard of review restate would, effect, from the statute. tion, be excised requirement this First, a problems. create several would also Such a construction put nonappealing fails to the standard of review restatement of the boilerplate In a case being appealed. issues and the court on notice may issues, include of pages proceedings thousands this lack of multiple at an specificity early stage everyone’s would waste time. Second, (1) R.C. 119.12 permits appeals courts review with or without (2) (3) counsel,
ordering further comments from ordering briefing, and admitting * * additional evidence: “The court shall conduct a hearing on the *. * * * hearing in the court of pleas proceed common shall as in the trial of a action, civil and the court shall determine the rights parties the accordance applicable with the laws to a civil action. At the counsel be hearing, may heard submitted, argument, on oral be may and evidence be if may introduced briefs the court has granted request for the presentation of additional evidence.” added.) (Emphasis provision This reveals that the administrative-appeals process was trial
designed give flexibility the court in selecting process the for resolution of the case. The court has the discretion to do as much as a full hold hearing extensive participation from the or as parties little as review the appeal without oral argument, briefing, However, or additional evidence. flexibility this can be if only exercised the appellant identifies the alleged defects the order or proceedings from which is taken. A general statement of factual and gives conclusions the trial court no guidance and essentially prevents the court from resolving the case summarily may when it be appropriate to do so (e.g., appellant’s when the specific argument has recently rejected been in a case). controlling a trial While court could conceivably choose to review the entire own, record and specific errors on its giving proper effect to the words of the statute eliminates that necessity. Finally, several courts of appeals have held that trial may courts
dismiss administrative-agency
failure to prosecute, even when the
trial court
orders
the local rules require
appellant
to file a brief and the
circumstances,
fails to do so.1 In these
the notice of
will be the
trial
only
source of guidance
regarding
specific issues for
If
appeal.
the appellant
provided
has
only
restatement of the standard of
court will be forced to waste time combing through the record to pinpoint
appealable issues.
It makes sense that the
would place on an
appellant the burden of
identifying
specific grounds of appeal
promote
management
efficient
appeal.
*5
In view of
119.12,
these reasons and the plain language of R.C.
we hold
satisfy
the “grounds
party’s
of the
appeal” requirement
119.12,
in R.C.
Hotz,
Liquor
Red
Inc. v.
e.g.,
Control Comm.
1993),
(Aug.
See,
Franklin
No.
17,
93AP-87,
App.
Orange City
(Dec.
Minello v.
School
Dist. Bd.
1982),
Cuyahoga
325591;
of Edn.
No.
627 or factual errors identify specific must under that statute parties appealing of review. the standard simply not restate they may appeal; notices of in their at that point not required errors is alleged of the explanation an extensive While that the enough must be the stated in the proceedings, accordingly, and objections proceed can party opposing court and are for review and issues of error way assignments much in the same in this of law are asserted and propositions of the courts presented court. appeal; in its notice errors designate precise failed to 21}
{¶
order was
that the
instead,
statutory
standard
it
reiterated
and
not
law and [was]
“not in accordance with
plain
with the
strictly comply
This statement does
evidence.”
substantial
to consider
jurisdiction
lacked
thus the trial court
of R.C.
and
meaning
Commerce, 114
St.3d
Dept.
v.
Hughes Ohio
MedCorp’s appeal. See
IV in the reasons, certified we answer the foregoing For the the cause and dismiss appeals, court of affirmative, judgment of the reverse jurisdiction. lack of Judgment reversed and cause dismissed. Cupp, JJ., concur. O’Connor, Lanzinger, dissent. Lundberg
Pfeifer, Stratton, J., dissenting. Lundberg Stratton, of Appeals District Court I with the Tenth agree I dissent. respectfully to invoke forth sufficient set not require 119.12 does of R.C. of the trial court. The
jurisdiction any party’s appeal” an appealing specificity. not add subtract a statute as written and duty It our to enforce St.3d Holcomb 18 Ohio Adoption In re
from the statute. degree majority has added N.E.2d 613. believe OBR Had not include the statute. Assembly did that the General specificity in the notice require specific intended to requiring appealing in R.C. 119.12 have included *6 reliable, indicate how the order was not probative, and substantial evidence. Ohio, As the court of appeals stated Derakhshan v. State Med. Bd. 07AP-261,
Franklin App. 2007-0hio-5802, No. we can “[w]hile appreciate appellee’s desire for appellant’s more detail about arguments, R.C. * * * 119.12 an only requires appellant to forth party’s ‘set[ ] It appeal.’ does not require appellant to set forth specific facts to support those grounds, expressly and we decline to adopt requirement.” such a Id. at ¶ 22. R.C. 119.12 is a general statute that covers appeals many different Thus,
agencies.
“[t]he
the statute must
of a general
be
nature to
many agencies
State,
accommodate the
purview.”
within its
Weissberg
Cuya
v.
(Dec.
hoga
1977).
No.
{¶ terms. The 27} statute requires that, no more than I disagree with majority’s decision a adopting more stringent standard. Consequently, would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. O’Donnell, concur in the foregoing opinion.
Pfeifer J., dissenting. I respectfully dissent. majority a opinion {¶ takes dramatic step away 28} from strict statutory and, construction than rather interpreting the words used in simply adds requirement statute, its own to the thereby creating a wholly new procedure for a filing notice of kinds cases. The majority also fails set forth the degree
{¶ specificity requires 29} identify a legal or factual Here, error of appeal. notice for example, MedCorp’s notice stated MedCorp appealed because not in [was] law and not supported by [was] probative, reference, evidence.” Is a specific statutory per- citation, haps case necessary to meet majority’s “specific legal errors” standard? Courts use standards such “contrary to law” in all manner of cases good and with reason: parties convey a specific legal thought such expressions. imposed requirement “specificity” forth the 119.12 does set the order identify only Rather, it calls for the majority. nothing It about says party’s appeal. “grounds” from and the procedural taken on view, may be my factual errors.
legal or *7 law,” as in accordance with “not by using the words grounds or constitutional to do here. MedCorp sought 123, 38 151 Ohio St. Comp. Unemployment. v. Bur. In Zier 746, stating appellant that a notice of N.E.2d we held
O.O. under Section 1346M to right “in accordance with his appealed “ and the errors forth the decision failed to ‘set General Code” ” the court jurisdiction upon to confer and therefore failed complained therein added.) 124, 126-127, 38 O.O. Zier at (Emphasis pleas. of common 1346-4, Code. Section quoting N.E.2d not synonymous. “errors” are However, “grounds” the terms (8th 2004) or point as reason “ground” “[t]he defines Dictionary Ed. Black’s Law < for (as validity grounds on for relies argument) claim or something contrast, In it defines Id. at 723. appeal>.” divorce> <several judgment, opinion, in a of law or of fact tribunal’s as mistake “[a] “error” specification order,” “assignment “[a] error” id. at and further defines seeking relies in appellant on which the alleged of the trial court’s errors reversal, vacation, judgment,” of an adverse id. or modification appellate than “grounds.” at “errors” are more Here, is not stating evidence,” is not law and it could have stated those appeal. Although for its stated how the order was not facts to demonstrate specificity, giving with more plain in accordance with law and how was not does not it to do so. require of the statute only has chosen to do here majority with statutes as the Tinkering on the words used rely law for who practice practitioners, complicates appeal. file a notice of they properly what must do to legislature to determine specific legal require 119.12 does not errors,” majority opinion error, “designate precise it call for a nor does require- majority’s decision insert appeal. at in its notice of urge it. I would the General joining me from prevents ments into this statute of law. important to this area regard its intent with clarify J., foregoing opinion. concurs Pfeifer,
Geoffrey Webster, Richards, E. J. Randall Eric B. Hershberger, appellee. Cordray, General, Mizer,
Richard Attorney Benjamin General, C. Solicitor Stephen Solicitor, P. Carney, Deputy Mekhjian, and Ara Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.