729 N.E.2d 808 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1999
Donald Zollinger appeals the Pickaway County Court of Common Pleas' judgment affirming the Ohio State Racing Commission's ("OSRC") ruling fining him five hundred dollars, disqualifying his horse from the winning purse money, and suspending his license for sixty days for improperly administering furosemide to a race horse. Zollinger argues that the OSRC lacked the statutory authority to fine him five hundred dollars. We disagree, because the OSRC's ruling is in accordance with R.C.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Zollinger appealed to the court of common pleas, which affirmed the ruling of the OSRC. In its decision and judgment entry, the trial court found that the OSRC's conclusion that Zollinger violated racing rules was supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence. The trial court further found that the penalties imposed by the OSRC were in accordance with law.
Zollinger appeals the judgment of the trial court, pursuant to R.C.
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE ORDER OF THE OHIO RACING COMMISSION PENALIZING DONALD ZOLLINGER FOR A FINDING OF AN EXCESSIVE AMOUNT OF FUROSEMIDE IN A HORSE TRAINED BY HIM WAS SUPPORTED BY RELIABLE, PROBATIVE AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
Upon an appeal from an administrative agency, the trial court looks to see if the evidence supports the agency's finding. R.C.
The court may affirm the order of the agency complained of in the appeal if it finds, upon consideration of the entire record and such additional evidence as the court has admitted, that the order is supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence and is in accordance with law.
Once the agency's order reaches a court of appeals, the scope of review is more narrow. The Supreme Court of Ohio has held as follows:
In reviewing an order of an administrative agency, an appellate court's role is more limited than that of a trial court reviewing the same order. It is incumbent on the trial court to examine the evidence. Such is not the charge of the appellate court. The appellate court is to determine only if the trial court has abused its discretion. An abuse of discretion "* * * implies not merely error of judgment, but perversity of will, passion, prejudice, partiality, or moral delinquency."
State, ex rel. Commercial Lovelace Motor Freight, Inc. v.Lancaster (1986),
Accordingly, while the trial court's standard of review is whether the OSRC's "order is supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence and is in accordance with law," R.C.
The OSRC concedes that Ohio Adm. Code 3768-08-01(B)(16) prescribes only that the Stewards can fine Zollinger two hundred fifty dollars and suspend his racing license for sixty days for improperly administering furosemide. However, the OSRC contends that Zollinger violated other OSRC rules, Ohio Adm. Code
The enabling legislation concerning horse racing is found in R.C. Chapter 3769. R.C.
Ohio Adm. Code
shall fine any licensee who violates paragraphs (B)(1)(b), (B)(3)(a), (B)(3)(b), (B)(3)(c), (B)(4)(a), (B)(4)(b), (B)(5)(a) and/or (B)(6) of this rule two hundred fifty dollars and may also suspend any Ohio state racing commission license held by such licensee for a period of not more than sixty days and the stewards may refer the matter to the commission for its consideration.
Furthermore, should the analysis of blood and/or urine specimens establish a violation of (B)(1)(b), the horse shall be disqualified in accordance with rule
Pursuant to Ohio Adm. Code
If a licensee engaged in conduct which is against the best interest of horse racing, the OSRC may revoke, suspend, or otherwise penalize, "under the provisions of rule
Zollinger does not dispute that he violated Ohio Adm. Code
We agree with Zollinger that Ohio Adm. Code
In conclusion, we find that the trial court acted within its discretion in affirming the decision of the OSRC to impose a five hundred dollar fine on Zollinger. We also find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding that the OSRC could disqualify Kerby's Slew from the purse money. Finally, we find that the OSRC acted within its delegated authority to suspend Zollinger's license, and therefore that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to modify the suspension. Therefore, we overrule Zollinger's assignment of error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Pickaway County Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution.
Any stay previously granted by this Court is hereby terminated as of the date of this entry.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 for the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Exceptions.
Abele, J. and Harsha, J.: Concur in Judgment and Opinion.
*715_______________________________ Roger L. Kline, Presiding Judge