Court Limits Application of Earlier Decision
2008-0584 and 2008-0630. Medcorp, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-6425.
Franklin App. No. 07AP-312, 2008-Ohio-464. On motion for reconsideration. Motion granted in part. See order.
Lundberg Stratton, O'Donnell, and Cupp, JJ., concur.
Pfeifer, J., concurs in judgment but believes the better course would have been to reverse the court’s holding in this case in its entirety.
Moyer, C.J., and O'Connor and Lanzinger, JJ., dissent.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-Ohio-6425.pdf 
View oral argument video of this case.
(Dec. 15, 2009) In response to a motion for reconsideration of a decision it handed down earlier this year, the Supreme Court of Ohio today issued an order limiting application of its May 7 ruling in Medcorp Inc. v. Ohio Department of Job & Family Services (ODJFS) to cases in which an appeal of an administrative agency order was filed after the announcement of the Medcorp decision.
Medcorp involved a 2006 adjudication order issued by ODJFS in which the department ordered Medcorp Inc. to repay $534,719 it had previously billed the department for providing ambulance services to Ohio Medicaid patients.
Pursuant to R.C. 119.12, Medcorp filed a notice of appeal with the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas seeking judicial reversal of the department’s administrative order. In its notice of appeal, Medcorp alleged only that the ODJFS order in question “is not in accordance with law and is not supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence.” ODJFS moved for dismissal of the appeal, arguing that Medcorp’s appeal notice had merely restated the statutory standard of review for reversal of any administrative order, and that language did not “state the grounds” upon which Medcorp’s appeal of the specific ODJFS order in this case was based as required by R.C. 119.12. Based on that defect, they argued, the notice of appeal did not properly invoke the jurisdiction of the trial court and Medcorp’s appeal should be dismissed. Without ruling on the state’s motion to dismiss, the trial court issued a decision on the merits of the appeal in favor of Medcorp and reversed the department’s order.
The department appealed to the 10th District Court of Appeals. The court of appeals concluded that the language of Medcorp’s notice of appeal set forth sufficient grounds to invoke the jurisdiction of the trial court, and affirmed the trial court’s decision on the merits. ODJFS sought and was granted Supreme Court review of the 10th District’s ruling.
In its May 7 decision, the Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that the requirement in R.C. 119.12 that an appellant must state in its notice of appeal “the grounds of the party’s appeal,” is not satisfied by a notice that merely restates the generic statutory standard of review for all appeals of state agency orders or rulings, (i.e., that the order appealed from “is not in accordance with law and is not supported by reliable probative and substantive evidence”). The majority opinion held that in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the common pleas court, a notice of appeal of an administrative agency order must identify one or more specific legal or factual errors allegedly made by the administrative agency in issuing the specific order or ruling for which judicial review is sought. Because Medcorp’s notice of appeal did not identify any specific legal or factual error made by ODJFS in issuing the order it sought to appeal, the Court held that Medcorp’s notice was insufficient and vacated the judgments of the common pleas court and 10th District granting Medcorp’s appeal.
Medcorp filed a motion for reconsideration, asking the Court either to reverse its May 7 ruling or, in the alternative, to modify that decision to restrict its application to appeals filed after it was announced. In August the Court instructed the parties to submit written pleadings addressing whether the May 7 decision should apply only prospectively, and if so to what cases it should be applied.
In today’s order granting reconsideration, the Court wrote: “The United States Supreme Court recognized in Great N. Ry. Co. v. Sunburst Oil & Refining Co. (1932) ... that state courts have broad authority to determine whether their decisions should operate prospectively only. We have applied the Sunburst Doctrineto limit a decision to prospective application only as a means of avoiding injustice in cases dealing with questions having widespread ramifications for persons not parties to the action. Upon consideration of the briefs filed pursuant to the court’s request, we conclude that application of the Sunburst doctrine is appropriate in this case. Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is granted to the following extent: The holding in Medcorp I shall apply only to cases filed on and after June 15, 2009, the date on which the opinion in Medcorp I was published in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets. Moreover, as to appellee, Medcorp, Inc., the court’s opinion in Medcorp I is modified to the following extent: The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.
Justices Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Terrence O’Donnell and Robert R. Cupp concurred in the Court’s opinion granting reconsideration. Justice Paul E. Pfeifer concurred in judgment, but stated that in his view the better course of action would have been to reverse the Court’s May 7 decision in its entirety.
Justice O’Donnell entered a separate opinion noting that he dissented from the original Medcorp ruling and reiterating his belief that the Court’s May decision should be reversed in its entirety. He also urged the legislature to “clarify its intent” with regard to the statutory provision at issue in this case.
Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer and Justices Maureen O’Connor and Judith Ann Lanzinger dissented without opinion.
Contacts
Benjamin C. Mizer, 614.466.8980, for the Ohio Department of Job & Family Services.
Geoffrey E. Webster, 614.461.1156, for Medcorp Inc.
Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion released by the Court, but only for those cases considered noteworthy or of great public interest. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of Court opinions. The full text of this and other Court opinions from 1992 to the present are available online from the Reporter of Decisions. In the Full Text search box, enter the eight-digit case number at the top of this summary and click "Submit."
Requires the free Adobe Flash Player.View system requirements, download instructions, and download the free Adobe Flash Player.