Cmty. Hosps. & Wellness Ctrs. v. State
| Decision Date | 07 February 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. WM-19-002,No. WM-19-001,WM-19-001,WM-19-002 |
| Citation | 151 N.E.3d 1113,2020 Ohio 401 |
| Parties | COMMUNITY HOSPITALS AND WELLNESS CENTERS, et al., Appellees v. The STATE of Ohio, et al., Appellees [James L. Butler, Jr.—Appellant] Community Hospitals and Wellness Centers, et al., Appellees v. The State of Ohio, et al., Appellants |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Quintin F. Lindsmith, Victoria Flinn McCurdy and Michael A. Shaffer, for appellees.
Enrique Rivera-Cerezo, for appellant State Representative James L. Butler, Jr.
Dave Yost, Ohio Attorney General, and Henry G. Appel, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant Ohio Department of Medicaid.
Dave Yost, Ohio Attorney General, Renata Y. Staff and Halli Brownfield Watson, for appellant state of Ohio.
DECISION AND JUDGMENT
{¶ 1} This is a consolidated appeal from the judgments of the Williams County Court of Common Pleas which denied the motion to intervene by non-party appellant, State Representative James L. Butler, Jr. (hereafter, "Butler") and granted the motion for partial summary judgment by the plaintiffs-appellees, Community Hospitals and Wellness Centers, Ohio Hospital Association, Ohio State Medical Association, Ohio Psychological Association, Ohio Physical Therapy Association, Ohio Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Ohio Chapter of the American College of Surgeons, Ohio Osteopathic Association, Academy of Medicine of Cleveland & Northern Ohio, Ohio Ophthalmologic Society, Ohio Gastroenterology Society, and Ohio Psychiatric Physicians Association. For the reasons set forth below, this court affirms the judgments of the trial court.
{¶ 2} On December 22, 2016, as amended on January 18, 2017, appellees filed a complaint against defendants-appellants, the state of Ohio and Ohio Department of Medicaid, seeking five counts of relief: Count I (claim for declaratory judgment that R.C. 5162.80 violates the one-subject and three-considerations rules of the Ohio Constitution), Count II (claim for declaratory judgment for violation of due process based on impossibility), Count III (claim for declaratory judgment for violation of due process on the grounds of vagueness), Count IV (claim for declaratory judgment for violation of due process on the grounds of vagueness and impossibility of rules), and Count V (claim for injunctive relief). In summary, appellees alleged Amended Substitute House Bill No. 52 of Ohio's 131st General Assembly ("Am.Sub.H.B. No. 52") was originally introduced regarding the workers' compensation program and, as a result of last-minute and extensive amendments, R.C. 5162.80, an unrelated provision known as Ohio's Price Transparency Law, was inserted. In the course of that legislative process to enact Am.Sub.H.B. No. 52, appellees alleged appellants violated the Ohio Constitution.
{¶ 3} Also on December 22, 2016, appellants agreed to refrain from any actions to implement R.C. 5162.80, and appellees agreed to not pursue attorney fees if they prevailed. On that same day the trial court journalized its temporary restraining order reflecting the parties' agreement. The trial court continuously extended the temporary restraining order throughout the pendency of the case with the agreement of the parties.
{¶ 4} On February 21, 2017, appellants filed a motion to dismiss alleging appellees lacked standing. Then on August 29, 2017, appellees filed a motion for partial summary judgment on Counts I and V of their complaint. Appellees argued they "are entitled to summary judgment in the form of a declaratory judgment that R.C. 5162.80 is unconstitutional, an order severing it from HB 52, and an order enjoining its enactment." Appellants opposed the motion, arguing, in part, Am.Sub.H.B. No. 52 is constitutional because its sole subject is "how medical care is paid for."
{¶ 5} Meanwhile on October 20, 2017, Butler filed a motion to intervene as an additional defendant and cross-claimant. Appellees opposed Butler's motion, and appellants opposed Butler's motion where he "unnecessarily and incorrectly calls into question the AGO's litigation strategies and tactics in defending the Price Transparency Law," although appellants conceded Butler may "provide a unique perspective" as the law's author. On December 21, 2017, the trial court denied Butler's motion. Butler then sought reconsideration of the trial court's decision with his intent to file a writ of mandamus, which appellees opposed, and on January 24, 2018, the trial court denied Butler's motion. Butler appealed the trial court's decisions, and on September 19, 2018, this court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
{¶ 6} After completion of discovery and a stay pending Butler's appeal, on February 13, 2019, the trial court denied appellants' motion to dismiss, granted appellees' motion for partial summary judgment, granted injunctive relief to appellees, and determined (Emphasis sic.)
{¶ 7} In response, Butler filed his appeal, designated case No. WM-19-001, setting forth three assignments of error:
{¶ 8} Appellants then filed their appeal, designated case No. WM-19-002, setting forth two assignments of error:
{¶ 9} Appellees also filed pursuant to R.C. 2505.22 two cross-assignments of error to Butler's appeal:
{¶ 10} On May 3, 2019, this court ordered the consolidation of case Nos. WM-19-001 and WM-19-002.
{¶ 11} Appellate review of a trial court's decision on a motion to intervene is for an abuse of discretion, regardless of whether the Civ.R. 24 intervention sought was as of right or by permission. State ex rel. Merrill v. Ohio Dept. of Nat. Resources , 130 Ohio St.3d 30, 2011-Ohio-4612, 955 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 41. Abuse of discretion " ‘connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.’ " Blakemore v. Blakemore , 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983), quoting State v. Adams , 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157, 404 N.E.2d 144 (1980).
{¶ 12} "We construe Civ.R. 24 liberally to permit intervention." Merrill at ¶ 41. Nevertheless, we will not reverse the trial court's findings of fact absent an abuse of discretion, nor will we make a finding of fact the trial court should have made nor extract a finding where no such finding was made. In re Guardianship of Rudy , 65 Ohio St.3d 394, 396, 604 N.E.2d 736 (1992).
{¶ 13} Intervention as of right is pursuant to Civ.R. 24(A)(2), which states:
Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action: * * * (2) when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties.
{¶ 14} In support of his first assignment of error, Butler argues he has a right to intervene because he is the Ohio legislator who authored R.C. 5162.80 contained in the duly enacted Am.Sub.H.B. No. 52. Although Governor Kasich signed into law Am.Sub.H.B. No. 52, Butler argues "this lawsuit is just part of [appellants'] prior coordination with [appellees] to nullify [ R.C. 5162.80 ] before it was scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2017" by "not recommending or drafting rules by July 1, 2016, supporting [appellees] in their uncompromising position at every interested party meeting, coordinating with [appellees] in the filing of the present lawsuit, and, eventually, proposing an outright repeal of [ R.C. 5162.80 ] in the 2017 state budget." Butler further alleges the attorneys for appellants, the Ohio Attorney General, have conflicts of interest that prevent them from zealously defending the duly enacted statute. Appellants and appellees argue in response the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
{¶ 15} This court has determined a successful applicant for intervention must prevail on each of four elements, Houtz v. Houtz , 6th Dist. Huron, 2018-Ohio-1738, 111 N.E.3d 888, ¶ 21 :
In order to intervene under Civ.R. 24(A)(2) the motion must be (1) timely, and the following factors must be shown: (2) the intervenor's interest relates to the subject of...
To continue reading
Request your trial