THE STATE EX REL. DISTRICT 1199, HEALTH CARE AND SOCIAL SERVICE UNION, SEIU, AFL-CIO, ET AL. v. LAWRENCE COUNTY GENERAL HOSPITAL, D.B.A. RIVER VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEMS, ET AL.
No. 98-837
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
October 14, 1998
83 Ohio St.3d 351 | 1998-Ohio-49
Submitted August 19, 1998
IN MANDAMUS.
{¶ 1} Respondent Lawrence County General Hospital, d.b.a. River Valley Health Systems (“hospital“), was established in 1936 and has occupied its present primary site since 1937. Lawrence County owns the land and the building of the hospital‘s primary site. The hospital pays no rent to Lawrence County for use of the facility. A bond issue funded the hospital‘s 1950 expansion, and the bonds were retired through public taxation. After 1950, there have been additional hospital expansions that have not been financed with public tax revenues.
{¶ 2} As provided for in
{¶ 3} An April 1997 independent auditor‘s report of the hospital referred to the hospital as a “component unit of Lawrence County, Ohio.” The State Auditor accepted the independent auditor‘s report in lieu of the audit required by
{¶ 4} In February and March 1998, relators, District 1199, Health Care and Social Service Union, SEIU, AFL-CIO, its president, and its secretary-treasurer, requested that respondents, the hospital and its administrator, provide them with access to the following records:
“1. Lists of the names, addresses, and job classifications of all employees employed at the River Valley Health System;
“2. Copies of the job descriptions for all classifications at the facility;
“3. Copies of contracts, if any, with all consultants, including attorneys, retained to advise you in the areas of personnel matters or labor relations;
“4. Copies of any contracts between your facility and Ohio State University, or Ohio State University Hospital.”
{¶ 5} After respondents denied access to the requested records, relators filed this action for a writ of mandamus to compel respondents to provide copies of the requested records. Relators also requested an award of reasonable attorney fees. Respondents have filed an answer, in which they claim that they have now given relator union some of the names that relators requested, i.e., the names of the hospital employees whom the union seeks to represent for collective bargaining purposes.
{¶ 6} This cause is now before the court for its determination under S.Ct.Prac.R. X(5).
Hunter, Smith, Carnahan & Shoub, Michael J. Hunter and Russell E. Carnahan, for relators.
Arter & Hadden, L.L.P., and Dennis D. Grant, for respondents.
{¶ 7} Pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. X(5), we must now determine whether dismissal, an alternative writ, or a peremptory writ is appropriate. In making this determination, we apply the following standards:
“Under S.Ct.Prac.R. X(5), dismissal is appropriate if it appears beyond doubt, after presuming the truth of all material factual allegations and making all reasonable inferences in favor of relator, that relator is not entitled to the requested extraordinary relief. State ex rel. Edwards v. Toledo City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 106, 108, 647 N.E.2d 799, 801-802. If, on the other hand, the complaint may have merit, an alternative writ should issue. Staff and Committee Notes to S.Ct.Prac.R. X(5). Finally, if it appears beyond doubt that relator is entitled to the requested extraordinary relief, a peremptory writ should issue. State ex rel. Findlay Publishing Co. v. Schroeder (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 580, 583, 669 N.E.2d 835, 839.” State ex rel. Stern v. Mascio (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 297, 298, 691 N.E.2d 253, 254.
{¶ 8} With the foregoing standards in mind, we now address relators’ claim for a writ of mandamus.
{¶ 9} Relators claim entitlement to a writ of mandamus to compel the hospital and its administrator to provide copies of the requested records. Insofar as relators have now received some of the requested records, i.e., a list of some of the names of hospital employees, relators’ mandamus claim is denied as moot. State ex rel. Thomson v. Doneghy (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 222, 685 N.E.2d 537.
{¶ 10} Regarding the remaining requested records, the hospital and its administrator initially contend that relators are not entitled to these records because
{¶ 11}
{¶ 12} The hospital is a “public office” for purposes of
{¶ 13} In addition, this conclusion, that the hospital is a “public office” subject to
{¶ 14} The hospital and its administrator next assert that relators are not entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel disclosure of the remaining requested
{¶ 15} Respondents’ assertion, however, lacks merit because persons seeking public records under
{¶ 16} It is further evident that the requested records are subject to disclosure under
{¶ 17} Based on the foregoing, we grant a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel respondents to provide copies of the remaining requested records. No further evidence or argument is required for the court to resolve this case. See State ex rel. Bowman v. Columbiana Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 398, 401, 674 N.E.2d 694, 696.
{¶ 18} Finally, we award attorney fees to relators. Unlike Fox, 39 Ohio St.3d at 112, 529 N.E.2d at 447, where we denied attorney fees because there was a “reasonable legal basis for respondents’ refusal to produce the requested documents,” there was no reasonable basis here, particularly given precedent on the “public office” issue. See Fox and Fostoria Daily Review. Relators are ordered to submit a bill and documentation in support of their request for attorney fees in accordance with the guidelines set forth in DR 2-106.
Writ granted in part and denied in part.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.