DocketNumber: No. C.A. E-81-50
Citation Numbers: 449 N.E.2d 486, 5 Ohio App. 3d 102
Judges: <italic>Per Curiam.</italic>
Filed Date: 3/5/1982
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023
This cause came on to be heard upon the record in the trial court. Each assignment of error was reviewed by the court and upon review the following disposition made:
Appellant, Erie Care Center, Inc., is appealing from a judgment of the Erie County Court of Common Pleas which affirmed an order of the Director of Health that the license of the operator of appellant be revoked. On June 2, 1980, appellee, John H. Ackerman, Director of the Ohio Department of Health, sent a letter to Mr. Price, owner and operator of appellant, in which appellee proposed to revoke his license to operate appellant because of violation of R.C.
On January 8, 1981, appellee issued an order in which he confirmed and approved the hearing officer's recommendations and ordered the license issued to the operator revoked.
Appellant appealed this decision of appellee to the Erie County Court of Common Pleas pursuant to the provisions of R.C.
Appellant's first assignment of error is:
"I. The trial court erred in finding that the license revocation order, which is *Page 103 not supported by findings of fact or conclusions of law, is lawful and valid."
R.C.
"In an adjudication hearing required by sections
Upon our examination, we find no violation of the provisions of R.C.
Turning to the other issue raised by appellant in this assignment of error, we disagree with appellant that the hearing examiner's conclusions of law do not constitute conclusions of law. We do agree, however, that some of the findings of fact made by the hearing examiner might be more precise. See, e.g., 5 Milligan, Ohio Forms of Pleading and Practice 52-14.4, Form 52:4. Some of the findings of fact made by the hearing examiner are more in the nature of a narrative of the evidence presented at the hearing.
We further find that appellant has failed to show any prejudice by the manner in which the hearing examiner made his findings of facts. The purpose of findings of fact is to aid the reviewing court and to protect the due process rights of those affected by an agency's actions. 2 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d 293, Administrative Law, Section 121. There is also ample evidence in the record to support appellee's decision to revoke the license of the operator of appellant. This assignment of error is not well taken.
Appellant's second assignment of error is:
"II. The trial court erred in finding (1) that the regulations of the Public Health Council, promulgated as Chapter 3701-17, O.A.C., are neither arbitrary nor unreasonable and (2) that §
The trial court held as follows regarding the issues raised by appellant in this assignment of error:
"Appellant asserts that the authorization of the Director of Health under ORC
"The authority of the legislature to delegate rule-making powers to administrative department heads has been clearly established and upheld. Cases such as Matz v. Curtis CartageCompany, 132 Ohio Estate [sic] 271 [8 Ohio Op. 41] (1937) and State
v. Schrenckengost, 30 Ohio Estate 33 [sic] [
"The question then becomes whether or not though these statutes and regulations on their face are constitutional, do they remain constitutional in light of the operative facts set forth in this case? The law clearly states that a legislative act may be valid upon its face, but unconstitutional because of its operative effect upon a particular set of facts. Belden v. United CentralLife Insurance Company, 143 Ohio Estate [sic] 329 [28 Ohio Op. 295]. While in this light appellant contends that some of the regulations set forth individually if used as a basis for revoking a license could be unreasonable, the Court finds this not to be the case in this instance. The appellant in this case was found by the referee to be in violation of many of the regulations quoted by the director as a basis for proposed revocation of the appellant's license. While any one of these violations taken alone may not have been sufficient to form a basis for the license revocation, the violations taken together clearly established a practice which justified the action of appellee."
We agree with the reasoning of the trial court and find no merit to the issues raised by appellant in this assignment of error. This assignment of error is not well taken.
Appellant's third assignment of error is:
"The trial court erred in finding that appellant's motion for variance from the nurse staffing requirements of Rule
The hearing examiner indicated as follows in his report regarding appellant's request for variance made for the first time at the August 16, 1980, hearing:
"While I agree that Rule
The trial court found, based upon this reasoning of the referee, that the referee's action in refusing to hear appellant's motion for a variance was not arbitrary or capricious. We agree with the trial court that the action of the referee in refusing to hear appellant's motion for a variance from staffing requirements, made for the first time at the August 16, 1980, hearing, cannot be characterized as being either arbitrary or capricious. This assignment of error is not well taken.
Appellant's final assignment of error is:
"The trial court erred in finding that the hearing before the referee, which resulted in the revocation of appellant's nursing home license, was not a sham and afforded appellant due process of law."
This assignment of error is not well taken.
Upon our review of the record we agree with the trial court's determination which discloses that the hearing before the hearing examiner did not constitute a "sham" or deny defendant due process of law. The record discloses that the provisions of R.C.
On consideration whereof, this court finds substantial justice has been done the party complaining and judgment of the Erie County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Cause remanded to said court for execution of judgment and assessment of costs. Costs assessed against appellant.
Judgment affirmed.
POTTER, DOUGLAS and BARBER, JJ., concur.