Heskett v. Ohio Dept. of Adm. Servs.

• Decision Date: 27 April 2006
• Docket Number: No. 05AP-1011.,05AP-1011.
• Parties: HESKETT, Appellee, v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, Appellant.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

850 N.E.2d 760

166 Ohio App.3d 311

2006-Ohio-2074

HESKETT, Appellee, v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, Appellant.

No. 05AP-1011.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District, Franklin County.

Decided April 27, 2006.

Dan Klos, for appellee.

Jim Petro, Attorney General, and James M. Evans, for appellant.

FRENCH, Judge.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Ohio Department of Administrative Services ("DAS") appeals from the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, which reversed an administrative ruling by appellant and awarded disability benefits to appellee, Judy Heskett. For the following reasons, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and find that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

{¶ 2} Appellee, a state employee, applied for disability leave benefits for the period of March 8, 2004 to April 11, 2004. Appellant thereafter notified appellee that it intended to deny her claim. Appellee requested a hearing. Appellant subsequently obtained additional medical information, but ultimately notified appellee a second time of its intention to deny her claim.

{¶ 3} A hearing was held before a hearing officer pursuant to R.C. Chapter 119 and Ohio Adm.Code Chapter 123. Appellee provided reports and test results from her physician. However, the hearing officer issued a report and recommendation denying benefits based on the opinions of two third-party physicians who concluded that benefits should be denied due to insufficient medical evidence.

{¶ 4} On October 27, 2004, appellant issued an order denying disability benefits. Appellee received notice of appellant's order by certified mail containing the order and a cover letter from the director of the DAS. The letter advised appellee that she could appeal the decision, and it gave the following instructions:

In the event that you do appeal, you must file the original Notice of Appeal with the Department of Administrative Services within 15 days from the mailing of this letter. You must also file a copy of the Notice of Appeal with the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County * * * within 15 days from the mailing of this letter. Upon filing the Notice of Appeal with the Court, we ask that you forward a time stamped courtesy copy of the Notice of Appeal bearing a file stamp and case number with the director of Administrative Services.

Such original Notice of Appeal must actually be received by the director of Administrative Services within the above-mentioned 15 day period, the Notice of Appeal must set forth the Order appealed from and state the grounds for your appeal.

{¶ 5} At 10:00 a.m. on November 9, 2004, counsel for appellee hand-delivered a notice of appeal and a cover letter to the legal office of DAS. A cover letter addressed to the chief legal counsel of DAS stated: "Enclosed please find a courtesy copy of the Notice of Appeal which was filed today and the Briefing Schedule for your convenience in the above-captioned matter." The enclosed notice of appeal was a photocopy of the original notice of appeal, which appellee's counsel had not yet filed with the court.

{¶ 6} At 11:51 a.m. on November 9, 2004, appellee's counsel filed a notice of appeal with the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. It is undisputed that counsel filed the original notice of appeal, containing his blue-ink signature, with the court. That original did not contain a DAS time stamp. The certificate of service attached to the notice of appeal stated that a "copy of the foregoing" was served by hand delivery upon the director of DAS and the chief legal counsel of DAS on November 9, 2004.

{¶ 7} Before the trial court, appellant moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that appellee had not properly filed the appeal and, therefore, had not invoked the jurisdiction of the court. The trial court rejected appellant's jurisdictional challenge, reversed appellant's order, and awarded disability benefits to appellee for the period March 8, 2004, to April 11, 2004.

{¶ 8} Appellant appealed to this court and now raises the following assignments of error:

I. The lower court abused its discretion and erred as a matter of law in ruling that [appellee] complied with the dual filing requirements of R.C. 119.12 and holding that it had jurisdiction to hear [appellee's] state agency administrative appeal.

II. The lower court erred as a matter of law in failing to give due deference to [appellant's] reasonable statutory interpretation of R.C. 119.12 and its conclusion that [appellee] failed to properly invoke the lower court's jurisdiction.

III. The lower court erred as a matter of law in not finding the independent third-party medical reviews of Dr. Hashmi and Dr. Thaxton, binding and conclusive on both parties, according to R.C. 124.385 and Ohio Adm.Code 123:1-33-07 and 123:1-33-12(C) by virtue of [appellee's] participation in a collective bargaining agreement.

IV. The lower court erred in reversing [appellant's] final order and in determining that the order was not supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence and was not in accordance with law.

{¶ 9} In its first assignment of error, appellant asserts that the trial court erred in ruling that appellee had met the requirements for filing an appeal under R.C. 119.12 and denying appellant's motion to dismiss the appeal. A motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction inherently raises questions of law, and our review is de novo. Groza-Vance v. Vance, 162 Ohio App.3d 510, 834 N.E.2d 15, 2005-Ohio-3815, at ¶ 13. Therefore, we consider appellant's assignment of error without deference to the trial court's decision.

{¶ 10} Statutory terms govern appeals from administrative agencies. R.C. 119.12 provides:

Any party desiring to appeal shall file a notice of appeal with the agency setting forth the order appealed from and the grounds of the party's appeal. A copy of such notice of appeal shall also be filed by the appellant with the court. Unless otherwise provided by law relating to a particular agency, such notices of appeal shall be filed within fifteen days after the mailing of the notice of the agency's order as provided in this section. * * *

{¶ 11} The question here is whether appellee met the requirements of R.C. 119.12 by filing a photocopy of an original notice of appeal with DAS and then filing the original notice of appeal with the trial court. The trial court found dispositive the fact that appellee submitted the original notice of appeal with the trial court, "when the agency got the first-filed copy." We find, however, that the trial court's decision is contrary to this court's precedent.

{¶ 12} In Stultz v. Ohio Dept. of Adm. Servs., Franklin App. No. 04AP-602, 2005-Ohio-200, 2005 WL 110472, at ¶ 6-7, this court concluded:

Here, there is no doubt that DAS received a photocopy of the original, because appellant hand-wrote his notice of appeal in ballpoint pen blue ink, and the file contains both the "blue-ink" version, time-stamped by the common pleas court's clerk, and the photocopy version, received by DAS. Although it seems pointless to require the common pleas court to determine whether a notice of appeal is a copy or an original, nevertheless, courts consistently have interpreted R.C. 119.12 as requiring that the original notice first go to DAS, with the copy then going to the common pleas court.

Based upon the above discussion, we conclude that, by first filing an original notice of appeal with the common pleas court and then filing a copy with DAS, appellant failed to comply with the requirements of R.C. 119.12, and the trial court properly dismissed his appeal. * * *

{¶ 13} In Berus v. Ohio Dept. of Adm. Serv., Franklin App. No. 04AP-1196, 2005-Ohio-3384, 2005 WL 1532400, at ¶ 10, the person appealing an agency decision filed an original notice of appeal with the agency and an original notice of appeal with the common pleas court. We concluded that such filings did not comport with R.C. 119.12:

By its express terms, R.C. 119.12 requires that a notice of appeal be filed with the agency, and a "copy of such notice" be filed with the common pleas court. It is axiomatic that an "original," by its very nature, is not a "copy." Thus, we believe it is clear from the statute's own language that the phrase "copy of such notice" means an exact duplicate of the notice of appeal filed with the agency.

{¶ 14} In Hughes v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce, Div. of Financial Inst., Franklin App. No. 04AP-1386, 2005-Ohio-6368, 2005 WL 3220219, at ¶ 11-15, we recognized:

The Supreme Court of Ohio has long held that "an [administrative] appeal the right to which is conferred by statute, can be perfected only in the mode prescribed by statute. The exercise of the right conferred is conditioned upon compliance with the accompanying mandatory requirements." Zier v. Bureau of Unemployment Comp. (1949), 151 Ohio St. 123, 84 N.E.2d 746, 38 O.O. 573, paragraph one of the syllabus; see, also, Holmes v. Union Gospel Press (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 187, 188, 414 N.E.2d 415-416. In Nibert v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab., and Corr. (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 100, 702 N.E.2d 70, the court specifically rejected the assertion that the administrative appeal pursuant to R.C. 119.12, should be liberally construed and instead determined that the statute should be strictly applied, stating that "there is no need to liberally construe a statute whose meaning is unequivocal and definite." Id. at 102, 702 N.E.2d 70, quoting Lake Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Ohio Ins. Guar. Assn. (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 521, 525, 634 N.E.2d 611, 614. The Court further reasoned that the plain language of the statute enabled both courts and administrative agencies to effectuate expeditious appeals, as well as promoting procedural efficiency and a simplified administrative appeals system. Id. at 102-103, 702 N.E.2d 70.

We have regularly addressed the issue of proper filing procedures pursuant to R.C. 119.12, and have consistently held that parties must strictly...