State ex rel. Cmty. Living Experiences, Inc. v. Buehrer, 11AP-132
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Ohio) |
| Citation | 2012 Ohio 1757 |
| Docket Number | No. 11AP-132,11AP-132 |
| Parties | State of Ohio ex rel. Community Living Experiences, Inc., Relator, v. Stephen Buehrer, Administrator, Ohio Bureau of Workers['] Compensation, Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 19 April 2012 |
2012 Ohio 1757
State of Ohio ex rel. Community Living Experiences, Inc., Relator,
v.
Stephen Buehrer, Administrator, Ohio Bureau of Workers['] Compensation, Respondent.
No. 11AP-132
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Rendered on April 19, 2012
Rendered on November 16, 2011
David M. Buda, for relator.
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and John R. Smart, for respondent.
SADLER, J.
{¶ 1} In this original action, relator, Community Living Experiences, Inc., requests a writ of mandamus ordering respondent, Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation ("BWC"), to reinstate relator's original manual classification for purposes of workers' compensation premiums.
{¶ 2} Pursuant to Civ.R. 53 and Loc.R. 12(M) of the Tenth District Court of Appeals, this matter was referred to a magistrate who issued a decision, including findings
Page 2
of fact and conclusions of law, which is appended hereto. The magistrate determined that BWC did not abuse its discretion by reclassifying relator from code 8864 (titled "Social Services Organization—All Employees & Salespersons, Drivers") to codes 8835 ("Home, Public and Traveling Healthcare—All Employees") and 8842 ("Group Homes—All Employees & Salespersons, Drivers"). The magistrate also found that BWC provided an adequate explanation for the reclassification. Accordingly, the magistrate recommended that this court deny the requested writ of mandamus.
{¶ 3} Relator now presents the following four objections for our consideration:
A. IN FINDING OF FACT NUMBER 2, THE MAGISTRATE ERRONEOUSLY FOUND THAT THE RELATOR PROVIDES HOME HEALTH CARE.
B. THE MAGISTRATE'S CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FAILED TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THE RESPONDENT ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED ITS REASON FOR RECLASSIFYING RELATOR'S EMPLOYEES UNDER MANUAL 8835.
C. THE MAGISTRATE ERRONEOUSLY CONCLUDED THAT THE RESPONDENT DID NOT ABUSE HIS DISCRETION IN RECLASSIFYING RELATOR USING MANUAL 8835.
D. THE MAGISTRATE ERRONEOUSLY CONCLUDED THAT RELATOR'S ARGUMENT WAS BASED UPON AN NAICS CODE RATHER THAN A NCCI CODE.
{¶ 4} For ease of discussion, we will address relator's objections out of order.
{¶ 5} Relator's second objection argues that the magistrate failed to address whether the BWC adequately explained the reason for its decision to reclassify relator under code 8835. We disagree. In its decision, the magistrate expressly found that the BWC's "explanation and rationale were sufficient" based on the order issued by the adjudicating committee, which was later affirmed by the administrator's designee. (Magistrate's Decision, ¶ 35.) According to the magistrate, the order explained why relator's operations were best described in code 8835 because relator provided its clients the same services as those defined in the code, such as skill development, transportation,
Page 3
personal hygiene, dressing, feeding, cooking, shopping, cleaning, laundry, and companion care. Thus, relator's second objection is overruled.
{¶ 6} Relator's third objection raises the same argument that was presented to, and sufficiently addressed by, the magistrate, i.e., that its reclassification under code 8835 was an abuse of discretion. Specifically, relator claims that code 8835 applies only to "well trained, licensed employees who routinely perform minor surgical procedures engendering contact with bodily fluids and infectious situations." (Relator's Objections, 5.) However, as the magistrate properly concluded, code 8835 also governs businesses that provide assistance in the activities of daily living, such as personal hygiene, dressing, cooking, shopping, and housekeeping. Because relator does not dispute the definition relied on by the magistrate, and because relator admittedly assists its clients with activities such as hygiene, cooking, and cleaning, we agree with the magistrate and find no abuse of discretion in the BWC's reclassification. Relator's third objection is therefore overruled.
{¶ 7} Relator's fourth objection disputes the magistrate's comment that relator mistakenly relied on a version of code 8835 established by the North American Industry Classification System ("NAICS") rather than the statutorily required categories established by the National Council on Compensation Insurance ("NCCI").1 However, whether or not relator quoted from the NAICS code rather than the NCCI code, relator does not challenge the portion of code 8835 relied on by the magistrate. Because we agree with the magistrate's analysis of NCCI code 8835, relator's fourth objection is overruled.
{¶ 8} Finally, we turn to relator's first objection, which purports to challenge the magistrate's factual finding that relator "also provides private home health care." (Magistrate's Decision, ¶ 17.) Relator argues that its services do not constitute "health care" and, without providing an alternate definition of the phrase, seems to rely on the definition set forth in code 8835. For the reasons stated above, we agree that the BWC did not abuse its discretion in reclassifying relator under that code. Accordingly, relator's first objection is overruled.
Page 4
{¶ 9} Upon review of the magistrate's decision, an independent review of the record, and due consideration of relator's objections, we find the magistrate has properly determined the pertinent facts and applied the appropriate law. We therefore adopt the magistrate's decision as our own, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained therein.
{¶ 10} Accordingly, relator's objections to the magistrate's decision are overruled, and the requested writ of mandamus is hereby denied.
Objections overruled;
writ of mandamus denied.
Page 5
State of Ohio ex rel. Community Living Experiences, Inc., Relator,
v.
Stephen Buehrer, Administrator, Ohio Bureau of Workers['] Compensation, Respondent.
David M. Buda, for relator.
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and John R. Smart, for respondent.
{¶ 11} Relator, Community Living Experiences, Inc., has filed this original action requesting that this court issue a writ of mandamus ordering respondent, Stephen Buehrer, Administrator, Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation ("BWC"), to return relator to its original classification for purposes of determining premiums instead of allocating relator's payroll to two different classifications.
Page 6
Findings of Fact:
{¶ 12} 1. The codes referred to are from the National Council on Compensation Insurance ("NCCI") and are used by the BWC to place employers under the proper code for purposes of determining the premiums the employer owes.
{¶ 13} 2. Relator owns and operates group homes and also provides private home health care. Relator serves clients both on-site as well as in the clients' homes. Relator's original classification was Code 8864.
{¶ 14} 3. The BWC audited relator for the period January 1 to December 31, 2008.
{¶ 15} 4. In September 2009, the BWC notified relator its Code 8864, Social Services Organization, had been inactivated as of July 1, 2009 and replaced with Codes 8842 Group Homes and 8835 Home-Public & Traveling Healthcare as of January 1, 2009. Because relator provided services both on-site and in the clients' homes, Code 8842 would no longer be proper for those employees servicing clients in their homes. Code 8835 applies to providers who assist clients in their own homes. Relator's employees were to be classified under two codes instead of one. Code 8835 carried with it a higher rate applicable to relator's premiums.
{¶ 16} 5. In March 2010, relator requested that BWC remove Code 8835 from its payroll, and assign only Code 8842 since it was comparable to relator's original code designation.
{¶ 17} 6. The BWC's adjudicating committee held a hearing on March 4, 2010. Relator argued that the home health care aides do not administer medications and are neither nurses nor physical therapists. The BWC argued that while relator owns and
Page 7
operates group homes, relator also provides private home health care. The BWC argued that, because the private home health care was performed outside the group home, it could not be rated with the group home classification, but must be classified with the code which describes the work done at the client's location.
{¶ 18} 7. The adjudicating committee held that the classification of Code 8835 was appropriate, finding, as follows:
* * * The employer's operations are best described by this classification. The services provided by the home health care aid [sic] are, skill development, transportation of clients, helping clients with personal hygiene, dressing, feeding, cooking, shopping and light duty cleaning, laundry, and companion care, at the client's home. These operations are best described in manual 8835. The Committee finds that the bureau has properly applied NCCI classifications pursuant to RC 4123.29. While the title of the section does not include all of the occupations described within the section, the descriptions in the body of the manual classification clearly do. This is the appropriate classification for the work activity described. The appeal is...
To continue reading
Request your trial