[Cite as Hale v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 2012-Ohio-775.]
COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
MARY S. HALE JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P. J. Plaintiff-Appellant Hon. John W. Wise, J. Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J. -vs- Case No. 2011 CA 00087 OHIO DEPARTMENT OF JOB AND FAMILY SERVICES, et al.
Defendants-Appellees OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2010 CV 02711
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: February 27, 2012
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellant For Defendant-Appellee ODJFS
KATHLEEN O. TATARSKY SUSAN M. SHEFFIELD 236 Third Street, SW ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL Suite 100 Carnegie Building 20 West Federal Street, 3rd Floor Canton, Ohio 44702 Youngstown, Ohio 44503
For Defendant-Apellee Windsor
SCOTT P. SANDROCK BRENNAN, MANNA & DIAMOND 75 East Market Street Akron, Ohio 44308 Stark County, Case No. 2011 CA 00087 2
Wise, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant Mary S. Hale appeals the decision of the Court of Common
Pleas, Stark County, which affirmed a decision of the Ohio Unemployment
Compensation Review Commission denying unemployment benefits to appellant, a
licensed practical nurse (“LPN”). The appellees herein are the Ohio Department of Job
and Family Services (“ODJFS”) and Windsor Medical Center, appellant’s former
employer. The relevant procedural facts leading to this appeal are as follows.
{¶ 2} Appellant commenced employment as an LPN at Windsor Medical Center,
a skilled residential nursing facility, in July 2004. Part of her duties included taking
telephone orders from physicians for medications prescribed for patients in Windsor’s
assisted living unit. On September 14, 2009, appellant took a telephone order from a
physician for the drug Roxanol. She properly recorded the physician’s order of 5 mg
sublingual every four to six hours as needed for pain. Appellant then duly called the
prescription into the pharmacy.
{¶ 3} However, when appellant proceeded to “chart” the information, via a
software program, on the patient’s nursing care plan, she incorrectly entered 5 “ml”
instead of 5 “mg.” The charge nurse, Karen Ball, discovered appellant’s entry error and
confronted her about it. Appellant initially indicated her belief that the “ml” and “mg”
entries were equivalent.
{¶ 4} On September 21, 2009, appellant was terminated from her position with
Windsor.
{¶ 5} Appellant thereafter applied for unemployment benefits. On October 13,
2009, the ODJFS Director issued an initial determination that appellant had been Stark County, Case No. 2011 CA 00087 3
discharged with just cause, thus disallowing her application for benefits. Appellant filed
for redetermination; however, the Director affirmed the original decision on November
5, 2009.
{¶ 6} Appellant thereupon appealed to the Unemployment Compensation
Review Commission. A hearing officer conducted telephonic hearings on April 14, 2010
and May 3, 2010. On or about May 10, 2010, the hearing officer issued a decision
affirming the Director’s redetermination decision that appellant was ineligible for
unemployment benefits.
{¶ 7} On June 1, 2010, appellant timely requested further review by the Review
Commission. On June 30, 2010, the claim was again disallowed.
{¶ 8} Appellant then filed an administrative appeal to the Stark County Court of
Common Pleas. On March 15, 2011, the trial court issued a four-page decision
affirming the Review Commission’s decision.
{¶ 9} On April 14, 2011, appellant filed a notice of appeal to this Court. She
herein raises the following two Assignments of Error:
{¶ 10} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE REVIEW
COMMISSION'S DECISION WAS SUPPORTED BY COMPETENT CREDIBLE
EVIDENCE AND WAS NOT UNLAWFUL, UNREASONABLE OR AGAINST THE
MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. A HEARING OFFICER WHO MAKES A
CREDIBILITY DETERMINATION BASED ON A TELEPHONE HEARING IS NOT IN
THE BEST POSITION TO JUDGE THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES. Stark County, Case No. 2011 CA 00087 4
{¶ 11} “II. THE REVIEW COMMISSION ERRED AS MATTER OF LAW IN
FINDING THAT HALE VIOLATED ANY STATE LAW AND THE TRIAL COURT'S
FINDING THAT THE HEARING OFFICER'S FINDING WAS LAWFUL IS IN ERROR.”
I., II.
{¶ 12} In her First and Second Assignments of Error, appellant contends the trial
court erred in finding that the Review Commission's decision was supported by the
evidence and was not unlawful, unreasonable, or against the manifest weight of the
evidence. We disagree.
{¶ 13} Generally, when reviewing a trial court's determination regarding whether
the order of an administrative agency is supported by the evidence, the appellate court
determines only whether the trial court abused its discretion. See Rossford Exempted
Village School District Bd. of Educ. v. State Bd. of Educ. (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 705,
707, 590 N.E.2d 1240.
{¶ 14} However, the process of filing applications for determination of benefit
rights and claims for unemployment compensation benefits with the ODJFS Director is
set forth in R.C. 4141.28. As a reviewing court, we may reverse an unemployment
board determination if it is unlawful, unreasonable, or against the manifest weight of
the evidence. Tzangas, Plakas & Mannos v. Administrator (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 694,
653 N.E.2d 1207, paragraph one of the syllabus. While appellate courts are not
permitted to make factual findings, or to determine the credibility of witnesses, they
have the duty to determine whether the board's decision is supported by the evidence
in the record. Id. at 696, 653 N.E.2d 1207. The same standard of review is shared by
all reviewing courts, from the common pleas court through the Ohio Supreme Court. Id. Stark County, Case No. 2011 CA 00087 5
Therefore, the duty of this court is to review the decision of the Review Commission to
determine whether it is unlawful, unreasonable, or against the manifest weight of the
evidence. Cardani v. Olsten Home Health Care (March 22, 1999), Tuscarawas App.
No.1998AP110118, unreported. As a reviewing court, we may neither substitute our
judgment for that of the Commission on questions of fact nor reassess the credibility of
the witnesses. Kilgore v. Bd. of Rev., Bur. of Unemp. Comp. (1965), 2 Ohio App.2d 69,
72, 206 N.E.2d 423.
{¶ 15} In the case sub judice, it is undisputed that Windsor did not implement the
“progressive discipline policy” set forth in its personnel manual. It is further undisputed
that appellant’s data entry error was discovered prior to any mistaken dosages actually
being given to the patient in question. Thus, appellant points out, Windsor’s own
system of checks and balances for dispensing medication caught the data error, which
appellant had never committed previously in her employment there.
{¶ 16} Appellees ODJFS and Windsor both respond that in addition to the
progressive discipline policy, the Windsor personnel manual provided that some severe
infractions allow for immediate dismissal without warning. One such infraction is an
action in violation of federal, state, or local law. Appellee directs us to O.A.C. 3701-17-
59, which states in pertinent part:
{¶ 17} “ ***
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as Hale v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 2012-Ohio-775.]
COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
MARY S. HALE JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P. J. Plaintiff-Appellant Hon. John W. Wise, J. Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J. -vs- Case No. 2011 CA 00087 OHIO DEPARTMENT OF JOB AND FAMILY SERVICES, et al.
Defendants-Appellees OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2010 CV 02711
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: February 27, 2012
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellant For Defendant-Appellee ODJFS
KATHLEEN O. TATARSKY SUSAN M. SHEFFIELD 236 Third Street, SW ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL Suite 100 Carnegie Building 20 West Federal Street, 3rd Floor Canton, Ohio 44702 Youngstown, Ohio 44503
For Defendant-Apellee Windsor
SCOTT P. SANDROCK BRENNAN, MANNA & DIAMOND 75 East Market Street Akron, Ohio 44308 Stark County, Case No. 2011 CA 00087 2
Wise, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant Mary S. Hale appeals the decision of the Court of Common
Pleas, Stark County, which affirmed a decision of the Ohio Unemployment
Compensation Review Commission denying unemployment benefits to appellant, a
licensed practical nurse (“LPN”). The appellees herein are the Ohio Department of Job
and Family Services (“ODJFS”) and Windsor Medical Center, appellant’s former
employer. The relevant procedural facts leading to this appeal are as follows.
{¶ 2} Appellant commenced employment as an LPN at Windsor Medical Center,
a skilled residential nursing facility, in July 2004. Part of her duties included taking
telephone orders from physicians for medications prescribed for patients in Windsor’s
assisted living unit. On September 14, 2009, appellant took a telephone order from a
physician for the drug Roxanol. She properly recorded the physician’s order of 5 mg
sublingual every four to six hours as needed for pain. Appellant then duly called the
prescription into the pharmacy.
{¶ 3} However, when appellant proceeded to “chart” the information, via a
software program, on the patient’s nursing care plan, she incorrectly entered 5 “ml”
instead of 5 “mg.” The charge nurse, Karen Ball, discovered appellant’s entry error and
confronted her about it. Appellant initially indicated her belief that the “ml” and “mg”
entries were equivalent.
{¶ 4} On September 21, 2009, appellant was terminated from her position with
Windsor.
{¶ 5} Appellant thereafter applied for unemployment benefits. On October 13,
2009, the ODJFS Director issued an initial determination that appellant had been Stark County, Case No. 2011 CA 00087 3
discharged with just cause, thus disallowing her application for benefits. Appellant filed
for redetermination; however, the Director affirmed the original decision on November
5, 2009.
{¶ 6} Appellant thereupon appealed to the Unemployment Compensation
Review Commission. A hearing officer conducted telephonic hearings on April 14, 2010
and May 3, 2010. On or about May 10, 2010, the hearing officer issued a decision
affirming the Director’s redetermination decision that appellant was ineligible for
unemployment benefits.
{¶ 7} On June 1, 2010, appellant timely requested further review by the Review
Commission. On June 30, 2010, the claim was again disallowed.
{¶ 8} Appellant then filed an administrative appeal to the Stark County Court of
Common Pleas. On March 15, 2011, the trial court issued a four-page decision
affirming the Review Commission’s decision.
{¶ 9} On April 14, 2011, appellant filed a notice of appeal to this Court. She
herein raises the following two Assignments of Error:
{¶ 10} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE REVIEW
COMMISSION'S DECISION WAS SUPPORTED BY COMPETENT CREDIBLE
EVIDENCE AND WAS NOT UNLAWFUL, UNREASONABLE OR AGAINST THE
MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. A HEARING OFFICER WHO MAKES A
CREDIBILITY DETERMINATION BASED ON A TELEPHONE HEARING IS NOT IN
THE BEST POSITION TO JUDGE THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES. Stark County, Case No. 2011 CA 00087 4
{¶ 11} “II. THE REVIEW COMMISSION ERRED AS MATTER OF LAW IN
FINDING THAT HALE VIOLATED ANY STATE LAW AND THE TRIAL COURT'S
FINDING THAT THE HEARING OFFICER'S FINDING WAS LAWFUL IS IN ERROR.”
I., II.
{¶ 12} In her First and Second Assignments of Error, appellant contends the trial
court erred in finding that the Review Commission's decision was supported by the
evidence and was not unlawful, unreasonable, or against the manifest weight of the
evidence. We disagree.
{¶ 13} Generally, when reviewing a trial court's determination regarding whether
the order of an administrative agency is supported by the evidence, the appellate court
determines only whether the trial court abused its discretion. See Rossford Exempted
Village School District Bd. of Educ. v. State Bd. of Educ. (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 705,
707, 590 N.E.2d 1240.
{¶ 14} However, the process of filing applications for determination of benefit
rights and claims for unemployment compensation benefits with the ODJFS Director is
set forth in R.C. 4141.28. As a reviewing court, we may reverse an unemployment
board determination if it is unlawful, unreasonable, or against the manifest weight of
the evidence. Tzangas, Plakas & Mannos v. Administrator (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 694,
653 N.E.2d 1207, paragraph one of the syllabus. While appellate courts are not
permitted to make factual findings, or to determine the credibility of witnesses, they
have the duty to determine whether the board's decision is supported by the evidence
in the record. Id. at 696, 653 N.E.2d 1207. The same standard of review is shared by
all reviewing courts, from the common pleas court through the Ohio Supreme Court. Id. Stark County, Case No. 2011 CA 00087 5
Therefore, the duty of this court is to review the decision of the Review Commission to
determine whether it is unlawful, unreasonable, or against the manifest weight of the
evidence. Cardani v. Olsten Home Health Care (March 22, 1999), Tuscarawas App.
No.1998AP110118, unreported. As a reviewing court, we may neither substitute our
judgment for that of the Commission on questions of fact nor reassess the credibility of
the witnesses. Kilgore v. Bd. of Rev., Bur. of Unemp. Comp. (1965), 2 Ohio App.2d 69,
72, 206 N.E.2d 423.
{¶ 15} In the case sub judice, it is undisputed that Windsor did not implement the
“progressive discipline policy” set forth in its personnel manual. It is further undisputed
that appellant’s data entry error was discovered prior to any mistaken dosages actually
being given to the patient in question. Thus, appellant points out, Windsor’s own
system of checks and balances for dispensing medication caught the data error, which
appellant had never committed previously in her employment there.
{¶ 16} Appellees ODJFS and Windsor both respond that in addition to the
progressive discipline policy, the Windsor personnel manual provided that some severe
infractions allow for immediate dismissal without warning. One such infraction is an
action in violation of federal, state, or local law. Appellee directs us to O.A.C. 3701-17-
59, which states in pertinent part:
{¶ 17} “ ***
{¶ 18} “(G) Medication shall be administered in accordance with accepted
standards of practice to a resident in a residential care facility only by the following
persons authorized by law to administer medication:
{¶ 19} “ *** Stark County, Case No. 2011 CA 00087 6
{¶ 20} “(2) A licensed practical nurse holding proof of successful completion of a
course in medication administration approved by the Ohio board of nursing ***.
{¶ 21} “(H) Residential care facilities that administer medication shall comply with
all of the following:
{¶ 22} “ ***
{¶ 23} “(2) All medications shall be given only to the individual resident for whom
they are prescribed, given in accordance with the directions on the prescription or the
physician's or other authorized prescriber's orders, and recorded on the resident's
medication record required by paragraph (I)(7) of this rule. ***.”
{¶ 24} In the case sub judice, as noted previously, appellant did not actually
administer or give the erroneous medication dosage to the patient; the error was
caught by the charge nurse prior to such time. Thus, we initially conclude that no basis
would have existed to fire appellant for a violation of the above law set forth in the Ohio
Administrative Code.
{¶ 25} However, appellee further responds that under R.C. 4141.29(D)(2)(a), no
individual may receive benefits if that individual “has been discharged for just cause in
connection with the individual’s work.” In Irvine v. State of Ohio Unemployment
Compensation Bd. of Review (1985), 19 Ohio St.3d 15, 17, the Ohio Supreme Court
defined “just cause" as "that which, to an ordinarily intelligent person, is a justifiable
reason for doing or not doing a particular act." Thus, the issue before us focuses on
whether Windsor’s decision to terminate appellant from her LPN position was justified
under such standard. Stark County, Case No. 2011 CA 00087 7
{¶ 26} The record indicates that the Roxanol medication at issue came in a liquid
form, with 20 milligrams of morphine medication in every milliliter. Thus, if the resident
would have been given the amount of medication which appellant transcribed, i.e., 5
ml., the resident would have received 100 mg. of morphine, or 20 times the prescribed
amount. Given the resident's age and weight, per a pharmacist’s report introduced at
the hearing, such a dose, without intervention, would be potentially lethal. See Tr. 1, at
25; Appendix 1, Exhibit E. As we noted in our recitation of facts, when appellant was
confronted by her charge nurse about the incident, she at first stated that the “mg” and
“ml” measurements were synonymous for this medication, not realizing the magnitude
of the error.
{¶ 27} While we recognize this was a single incident by appellant, upon review,
we are unable to conclude that the decision of the Review Commission, and the trial
court in affirming same, was unlawful, unreasonable, or against the manifest weight of
the evidence.
{¶ 28} Appellant adds to her argument that her telephonic hearing before the
review commission hearing officer calls into question the officer’s ability to properly
determine credibility. We note various OAC provisions allow telephonic hearings (see,
e.g., OAC 4146-5-05), and appellant provides no case law authority clearly supporting
her position. In fact, telephonic hearings have been specifically determined not to be a
denial of due process. See Wright v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review
(1988), 51 Ohio App.3d 45. Furthermore, in the case sub judice, in a notification sent to
the parties on December 14, 2009, the Review Commission notified the parties that an
in-person hearing could be requested. Appellant did not take advantage of said notice, Stark County, Case No. 2011 CA 00087 8
nor was a specific objection made to the use of a telephonic hearing during the
proceeding. As such, we find appellant’s claim in this regard to be waived for purposes
of appeal.
{¶ 29} Appellant’s First and Second Assignments of Error are overruled.
{¶ 30} For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion, the judgment of the Court
of Common Pleas, Stark County, Ohio, is hereby affirmed.
By: Wise, J.
Hoffman, P. J., and
Edwards, J., concur.
___________________________________
JUDGES JWW/d 0129 Stark County, Case No. 2011 CA 00087 9
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
MARY S. HALE : : Plaintiff-Appellant : : -vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY : OHIO DEPARTMENT OF JOB AND : FAMILY SERVICES, et al. : : Defendants-Appellees : Case No. 2011 CA 00087
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the
judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Stark County, Ohio, is affirmed.
Costs assessed to appellant.
JUDGES