Gingo v. State Medical Bd.
Decision Date | 11 January 1989 |
Docket Number | 13490,Nos. 13485,s. 13485 |
Citation | 564 N.E.2d 1096,56 Ohio App.3d 111 |
Parties | GINGO, Appellant, v. STATE MEDICAL BOARD, Appellee. * |
Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The notice of appeal required to be filed with a state agency in an appeal of an adjudication order pursuant to R.C. 119.12 is presumptively timely delivered when it is shown to have been mailed within sufficient time for it to have arrived at the agency before the fifteen-day time limit. In other words, it is presumed that once the notice of appeal timely enters the ordinary course of the mails, the notice will be timely delivered.
2. The party contesting the timeliness of an R.C. 119.12 notice of appeal has the burden of proof of rebutting the presumption resulting from the timely mailing of the notice. An administrative agency may not overcome this presumption by merely introducing the agency's time-stamped date of reception of the notice of appeal.
Robert W. Blakemore and Robert C. Meeker, Akron, for appellant.
Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Cheryl J. Nester, Columbus, for appellee.
The Ohio State Medical Board appeals and Anthony J. Gingo, M.D., cross-appeals from the order of the trial court which modified the State Medical Board's decision to revoke Dr. Gingo's medical license. We affirm.
On June 11, 1985, the State Medical Board ("board") held a meeting at which time the board agreed to issue a citation letter to Dr. Gingo. Dr. Raush, a member of the board, was assigned to preside over the hearing if Dr. Gingo requested one. By letter dated June 17, 1985, the board notified Dr. Gingo that he potentially violated:
The board issued the first charge based on an incident where the police had stopped a car driven by a patient of Dr. Gingo for an unrelated traffic offense. In their search of the car, the police discovered an envelope containing amphetamines. The face of the envelope lacked the doctor's name and address. Dr. Gingo's patient indicated to the police that he had received the medication from Dr. Gingo. As a result of Dr. Gingo's omitting to affix his name and address to the envelope, he was convicted of the misdemeanor crime of failing to properly label the medication he had dispensed. The second charge that the board levied against Dr. Gingo stemmed from his purchases of large numbers of dosage units of amphetamines for the years 1980, 1982, 1983 and 1984.
At a September 11, 1985 meeting, the board reviewed additional evidence concerning Dr. Gingo's practice. After reviewing the evidence, the board decided to amend the citation letter to include:
Both of these charges were derived from the doctor's alleged excessive purchases of amphetamines during specific years. At the meeting, Dr. Raush, the hearing examiner assigned to Dr. Gingo's case and a member of the board, excused himself from the meeting during the discussion of the additional evidence and during the voting on amending the citation letter. In addition, the staff attorney who later presided was present during the discussion and vote.
Upon receipt of the citation letter, Dr. Gingo requested a hearing before the board to determine the validity of the charges. Sometime before the actual hearing, the board changed the hearing examiner from Dr. Raush to Lauren Lubow, the staff attorney originally responsible for scheduling case assignments. The hearing took place on December 10, 1985 and December 17, 1985. The evidence adduced at the hearing revealed that Dr. Gingo originally had started his practice as a family practitioner. He later began to specialize in the treatment of obesity. According to the doctor's own testimony as well as the exhibits introduced into evidence, Dr. Gingo had implemented a weight control plan which primarily involved dieting, exercising and the use of anorectics or amphetamines over an extended period of years.
The hearing examiner issued her findings of fact and conclusions of law after the hearing. The facts as determined by the hearing examiner are that Dr. Gingo purchased a total of 1,260,000 dosage units of methamphetamine in 1980, 1982 and 1983, and 50,000 dosage units of phentermine in 1984; that Dr. Gingo was convicted of failing to properly label the drugs he gave to his patients; and that Dr. Gingo routinely used methamphetamine as part of a long-term treatment of obesity. From these facts, the hearing examiner concluded:
The hearing examiner recommended that Dr. Gingo's license to practice medicine should be revoked. Dr. Gingo timely filed objections to the report. On August 14, 1986, the members of the board voted to confirm Lubow's findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The board issued its decision on August 15, 1986. Dr. Gingo filed a notice of appeal with the Summit County Court of Common Pleas on August 29, 1986. (August 30 was a Saturday; August 31 was a Sunday; and September 1, Monday, was Labor Day.) On September 3, 1986, more than fifteen days after the board's decision was issued, the board stamped as received Dr. Gingo's notice of appeal. Consequently, at the trial court, the board moved to dismiss Dr. Gingo's appeal because it was not filed within the fifteen-day time limit prescribed by R.C. 119.12. The trial court held that the board had constructively received the notice within the fifteen-day time period.
After deciding this jurisdictional issue in favor of Dr. Gingo, the trial court proceeded to hear additional evidence on Dr. Gingo's allegations that he was denied a fair and impartial hearing. As well as the new evidence presented, the trial court had before it a transcript of the hearing held before the board, the exhibits and the briefs of both parties. The trial court found that the hearing was not in accordance with law because it was conducted by the board's attorney and not a board member. Second, the trial court determined that only one of the violations upon which the board formed the basis to revoke the doctor's license was supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence. The court thereupon modified the order of the board. The trial court upheld the violation which stemmed from Dr. Gingo's conviction for failure to properly label his medication. Therefore, instead of permanently revoking Dr. Gingo's license, the trial court suspended his license for a fifteen-day period.
The board appeals, and Dr. Gingo cross-appeals the trial court's decision to modify the board's order.
The board...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Capparell v. Love
...of appeal were mailed on December 27, 1993, and were, therefore, timely for purposes of R.C. 119.12. See Gingo v. Ohio State Med. Bd. (1989), 56 Ohio App.3d 111, 564 N.E.2d 1096. In Gingo, the court found that a notice of appeal is presumptively timely delivered when it is shown to have bee......
-
Shirley E. Capparell, C/o Capparell Real Estate v. Kathleen Love and Robert Love, C/o Jeffers Realty Co., 94-LW-0570
...27, 1993, and were, therefore, timely for purposes of R.C. 119.12. See Gingo v. Ohio State Medical Bd. (1989), 56 Ohio App.3d 111. In Gingo, the court found that a notice of appeal is presumptively timely delivered when it is shown to have been mailed within a sufficient time for it to have......
-
In re Heather Cox, Delinquent Child Case Nos. 98-G-2183 and 98-G-2184, 99-LW-6112
......See, also, Denovchek v. Bd. of Trumbull Cty. Commrs . (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 14,. ...Zakany (1984), 9 Ohio. St.3d 192, 194; State ex rel. Shoop v. Mitrovich . (1983), 4 Ohio St.3d ......
-
Kenneth S. Clark and Jennifer v. Clark v. Wheeler & Clevenger Oil Co.
...... Gingo v. Ohio State Medical Bd. (1989), 56 Ohio. App.3d ......