Latest News

The Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County has denied a company from adding new evidence in its appeal of the Ohio Department of Developmental Disabilities’ revocation of its certificate to provide non-medical transportation services to individuals.

The Department cited the provider company in 2012 and again in 2015 for compliance violations. After Department revocation, the provider company appealed through the Common Pleas Court, where the provider moved to supplement the Department record with documents showing compliance after taking corrective measures.

Ohio Revised Code 119.12(K) confines the court’s review to the record certified by the Department. The reviewing court may consider new evidence only if “newly discovered” which was not available during the agency appeal process from “a reasonably diligent search.” Such evidence must exist at the time of the administrative hearing, and is not “newly created evidence” such as recommendations or post-appeal remedial measures.

In addition, Ohio Revised Code 2506.03 confines the court review to the transcript, unless the transcript does not contain a report of all evidence, or the provider company was not permitted to appear in person or through an attorney; testimony was not under oath; the Department refused to provide a subpoena; or the transcript did not contain conclusions of fact supporting the Department’s decision.

The Court of Appeals rejected the provider company’s claim that revocation was unduly harsh and excessive for mere technical administrative violations, all of which had been corrected. A court review of an agency adjudication is limited to whether the decision is supported by a preponderance of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence. A court may not substitute its judgment for that of an agency.

Cty. Med., Inc. v. Dept. of Dev. Disabilities, 2017-Ohio-5745.

If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact attorney Luther L. Liggett of Graff & McGovern at 614-228-5800, ext. 6.