Shampine v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs.Shampine v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs.
Rendered on November 22, 2011
Latefah Shampine, pro se.
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Amy S. Brown, for appellee.
APPEALS from the Court of Claims of Ohio.
PER CURIAM.
{¶1} Plаintiff-appellant, Latefah Shampine, appeals from judgments of the Ohio Court of Claims dismissing her complaint for defamation and her complaint for unemployment compensation benefits, both against defendant-appellee, Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (“ODJFS“). Because the Court of Claims properly concluded (1) the statute of limitations bars plaintiff‘s claim for defamation, and (2) the
I. Facts and Procedural History
A. Case No. 11AP-123
{¶2} Plaintiff filed a complaint on November 12, 2010, alleging ODJFS falsely accused her of owing money from August 1, 1977 to April 30, 1986. Claiming ODJFS’ allegations caused her to lose her job, defamed her character, and brought extreme financial distress, she sought $200,000 in damages. ODJFS responded with a motion to dismiss, asserting the statute of limitations barred plaintiff‘s claim.
{¶3} On January 5, 2011, the Court of Claims issued an entry of dismissal, noting the complaint stated ODJFS’ defamatory accusations occurred in the course of criminal proceedings in the mid-1980s. Givеn those allegations, the court found the one-year statute of limitations for defamation actions barred plaintiff‘s complaint. The court also pointed out that, to the extent plaintiff sought rеview of her criminal conviction, the Court of Claims lacked jurisdiction.
B. Case No. 11AP-384
{¶4} On November 22, 2010, plaintiff filed a complaint against ODJFS contending it wrongfully denied her unemployment benefits. Alleging that since July 9, 2001 she has filed appeal after appeal, plaintiff contended ODJFS “has never given her payments that she was due to receive.” (Complaint, 2.) Plaintiff asserted ODJFS’ wrongful actions caused her to lose her home аnd to suffer mental and physical harm as well as financial loss. The complaint sought damages in the amount of $200,000. ODJFS responded with a motion to dismiss filed on December 8, 2010.
{¶5} On March 23, 2011, the Court of Claims filed an entry of dismissаl, concluding it lacked jurisdiction over plaintiff‘s claim. The court explained the administrative procedural remedy for those denied unemployment compensation benefits and stated “[a] party cannot circumvent the requirements of the statutes that relate to timely appeals from administrative agencies by filing tort actions or any other form of action in the courts of common pleas or the Court of Claims as a means of avoiding the jurisdictional requirements of the statutes governing administrative appeals.” (Entry, 1-2.) Because plaintiff‘s claims amounted to an appeаl from a decision denying her unemployment compensation, the court determined
II. Assignments of Error
{¶6} In case No. 11AP-123, plaintiff assigns a single error:
Ohio Department of Job and Family Services knowingly made a statement that misrepresents a fact.
{¶7} In case No. 11AP-384, plaintiff assigns a singlе error:
The lower courts erred, dismissing. [sic] Dismissing Plaintiff-Appellant‘s case.
III. Case No. 11AP-123 - Statute of Limitations
{¶8} Plaintiff‘s assignment of error asserts the Court of Claims erred in granting ODJFS’
{¶9} In deciding whether to dismiss a complaint pursuant to
{¶10} A complaint may be dismissed pursuant to
{¶11} Plaintiff‘s complaint plainly presents allegations of defamation and likewise plainly sets forth the date when plaintiff contends the wrongful aсtion took place. Accordingly, the applicable statute of limitations may be applied to the dates presented in plaintiff‘s complaint to determine whether the appropriate statute of limitations time-bars plaintiff‘s complaint.
{¶12}
{¶13} According to plaintiff‘s complaint, her defamation claim arises out of statements ODJFS allegedly made during the course of criminal proceedings in the mid-1980s. Because her complaint was not filed until 2010, it is untimely under
{¶14} Because the statute of limitations bars plaintiff‘s claim, the trial court рroperly dismissed her complaint. Plaintiff‘s assignment of error is overruled.
IV. Case No. 11AP-384 - Appeal from Administrative Decision
{¶15} Plaintiff‘s assignment of error asserts the Court of Claims erred in concluding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over her claim for unemploymеnt compensation. A “court has subject matter jurisdiction over a case if the court has the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate that case.” Garrett v. Columbus, 10th Dist. No. 10AP-77, 2010-Ohio-3895, ¶13, citing Pratts v. Hurley, 102 Ohio St.3d 81, 2004-Ohio-1980, ¶11. A dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under
{¶16} An applicant seeking unemployment compensation applies for benefits and submits information to ODJFS to support his or her claim. McGee v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 10th Dist. No. 09AP-680, 2010-Ohio-673, ¶9. Initially, the director of ODJFS mаkes findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether a discharged employee is entitled to unemployment benefits. Id., citing
{¶17} In George v. Ohio Dept. of Human Servs., 10th Dist. No. 04AP-351, 2005-Ohio-2292, this court addressеd a similar issue where a class of plaintiffs brought suit against the Ohio Department of Human Services, alleging “ODHS improperly denied them Medicaid benefits” stemming from “ODHS’ disregard for the Ohio Administrative Code provisions еnacted to implement the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988.” Id. at ¶2. George concluded that although the plaintiffs crafted their complaint as an action for monetary damages, “plaintiffs’ action is in reality an appeal of the ODHS’ Medicaid eligibility determinations.” Id. at ¶31.
{¶18} As George noted, “the right to dispute the validity of an administrative decision is only conferred by statute and, if such a statutory right exists, the party aggrieved by the administrative decision can only seek an appeal via the method articulated in the statute.” Id. at ¶32. Accordingly, George determined Ohio statute and administrative rules embody the remedy to challenge ODHS’ еligibility determinations. Id. Stating that “[a]n action in the Court of Claims cannot become a substitute for a statutorily created right of appeal [of an administrative decision] in a different court,” George decided thе Court of Claims lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the plaintiffs’ action. Id. at ¶35, quoting Swaney v. Bur. of Workers’ Comp. (Nov. 10, 1998), 10th Dist. No. 98AP-299.
{¶19} Here, although plaintiff asserts her claim is one for damages, she actually seeks review and reversal of the administrаtive decision to deny her certain unemployment benefits. Under
{¶20} The Court of Claims did not err in determining it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear plaintiff‘s complaint. Plaintiff‘s assignment of error is overruled.
V. Disposition
{¶21} Because the Court of Claims properly determined the statute of limitations bars plaintiff‘s claim in case No. 11AP-123, and the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of plaintiff‘s complaint in case No. 11AP-384, we overrule рlaintiff‘s single assignment of error in each case and affirm the judgments of the Ohio Court of Claims.
{¶22} Plaintiff also filed a motion to supplement the record on appeal. Implicit in the motion are issues about whether the record properly may be supplemented at this stage of the proceedings. Even apart from those issues, we deny the motion because the documents plaintiff seeks to add to the record do not address the dispositive issues in these appeals.
Motion denied; judgments affirmed.
BRYANT, P.J., SADLER & FRENCH, JJ., concur.
____________________