[Cite as Autumn Health Care of Cambridge, Inc. v. Todd, 2015-Ohio-264.]
COURT OF APPEALS
GUERNSEY COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
AUTUMN HEALTH CARE OF : JUDGES:
CAMBRIDGE, INC. : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
: Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J.
Plaintiff-Appellant : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
:
-vs- :
:
CAROL TODD, ET AL. : Case No. 14 CA 16
:
Defendants-Appellees : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common
Pleas, Case No. 14CV000041
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: January 20, 2015
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellant For Defendants-Appellees
RICK L. BRUNNER ARA MEKHJIAN
PATRICK M. QUINN EMILY PELPHREY
KAITLIN L. MADIGAN 30 East Broad Street
35 North Fourth Street 26th Floor
Suite 200 Columbus, OH 43215
Columbus, OH 43215
Guernsey County, Case No. 14 CA 16 2
Farmer, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Autumn Health Care of Cambridge, Inc., owns and operates a
skilled nursing home facility. On September 28, 2013, employees of the Ohio
Department of Health, appellees herein, surveyed the facility to determine if it was in
compliance with the federal requirements for nursing homes participating in the
Medicare/Medicaid programs. Based upon the surveys, appellant received numerous
citations.
{¶2} On August 29, 2013, appellant filed a complaint for declaratory judgment,
seeking a declaration that appellees violated its rights to due course of law and equal
protection under the Ohio Constitution. On February 28, 2014, appellees filed a motion
to dismiss. By entry filed July 23, 2014, the trial court granted appellees' motion and
dismissed the complaint.
{¶3} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for
consideration. Assignments of error are as follows:
I
{¶4} "THE TRIAL COURT HAD SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER
AUTUMN'S CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF, AND THE COMPLAINT STATED A
CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED. THE TRIAL COURT
THEREFORE ERRED IN DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT."
II
{¶5} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING AUTUMN'S CLAIMS FOR
FAILURE TO JOIN A PARTY UNDER CIV. R. 19 WHERE CMS WAS NOT A PROPER
PARTY TO THE COMPLAINT."
Guernsey County, Case No. 14 CA 16 3
III
{¶6} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING AUTUMN'S COMPLAINT
FOR ATTACHING EXHIBITS TO ITS COMPLAINT WHICH WERE NOT PRIVILEGED
AND WHICH AUTUMN NEVER INTRODUCED INTO EVIDENCE."
{¶7} Appellant challenges the trial court's July 23, 2014 Civ.R. 12(B) dismissal
of the complaint. The February 28, 2014 motion to dismiss filed by appellees contained
both Civ.R. 12(B)(1) and (6) arguments i.e., issues of standing and failure to
demonstrate an injury, subject matter jurisdiction and exhaustion of administrative
remedies, ineffective pleading, failure to join a necessary party, and issues as to striking
attachments to the complaint.
{¶8} Our standard of review on a Civ.R. 12(B) motion to dismiss is de novo.
Greeley v. Miami Valley Maintenance Contractors, Inc., 49 Ohio St.3d 228 (1990). A
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is
procedural and tests the sufficiency of the complaint. State ex rel. Hanson v. Guernsey
County Board of Commissioners, 65 Ohio St.3d 545, 1992-Ohio-73. Under a de novo
analysis, we must accept all factual allegations of the complaint as true and all
reasonable inferences must be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party. Byrd. v. Faber,
57 Ohio St.3d 56 (1991).
I
{¶9} Appellant claims the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint because
the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction and the complaint stated a claim upon
which relief may be granted. We disagree.
Guernsey County, Case No. 14 CA 16 4
{¶10} During oral argument, appellant argued the facts in the complaint were
sufficient to establish a "stigmatizing harm" as a result of the survey findings, despite
not arguing the issue at the trial court level or in its appellate brief. Although this is a
novel argument, it is worthy to note that appellant, by filing the complaint and attaching
the survey findings, is in fact the publisher of the stigmatizing harm.
{¶11} "It is axiomatic that a litigant's failure to raise an issue in the trial court
waives the litigant's right to raise that issue on appeal.***" Branden v. Branden, 8th
Dist. Cuyahoga No. 91453, 2009-Ohio-866, ¶ 30. "[A]n issue raised during oral
argument for the first time and not assigned as error in the appellate brief is, generally,
untimely.***" State v. Chambers, 10th Dist Franklin No. 99AP-1308, 2000 WL 963890
(July 13, 2000), *7. "Further, under App.R. 12(A), an appellate court is not required to
consider issues not argued in the briefs." Id.
{¶12} In its complaint filed August 29, 2013, appellant sought declaratory relief,
praying for the following:
59. Plaintiff prays for a judgment declaring as follows:
59.1 That Defendants in dealing with Plaintiff in connections with
Exhibits 1 through 7 to the Plaintiff's Complaint failed to provide and afford
Plaintiff with due course of law and equal protection of law under the Ohio
Constitution,
59.2 That all surveys of Autumn Healthcare Zanesville of an "F"
rating be declared void, affording Plaintiff due course of law and equal
Guernsey County, Case No. 14 CA 16 5
protection of the law in accordance with the Ohio Constitution or in the
alternative,
59.3 That this Court declare what constitutes due course of law and
equal protection of law under the Ohio Constitution in Defendants dealing
with Plaintiff.
{¶13} In Autumn Health Care of Zanesville, Inc. vs. Carol Todd, 5th Dist.
Muskingum No. CT2014-0020, 2014-Ohio-____, ¶ 12, and Autumn Care Center, Inc.
vs. Carol Todd, 5th Dist. Licking No. 14-CA-41, 2014-Ohio-5235, ¶ 11, this court
reviewed the identical claims and issues as argued sub judice.1 This court specifically
found the language of the complaints, although couched as declaratory judgment
actions, did not raise justiciable claims or injuries and therefore the trial court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction until all administrative remedies were exhausted:
[Autumn Health Care, supra, at ¶31-33.] All of the complaints levied
against appellees in this case are subject to administrative review. Until
and when the administrative review is complete, there is no justiciable
claim or subject matter jurisdiction.
Although appellant has assigned various other arguments in
support of reversal as cited above, we find under Ohio case law and the
administrative process, we need not address the other issues save for the
issue of whether the dismissal was with prejudice.
1
We note the opinions and judgment entries in both cases were filed on November 21,
2014, and appeals to the Supreme Court of Ohio have not been taken.
Guernsey County, Case No. 14 CA 16 6
The dismissal we are affirming rests on the failure to exhaust
administrative remedies and the present availability of a justiciable claim.
We find such a dismissal relates to subject matter jurisdiction and is
otherwise than on the merits; therefore, the dismissal is without prejudice
under Civ.R. 41(B)(4)(a).
[Autumn Care Center, supra, at ¶ 18-19] Despite appellant's
arguments, the facts in this case do not lead us to the conclusion that it
had standing or that it had pled a justiciable claim.
The complaint does not allege any injury or any punitive action
taken by appellees, state employees. There is no pending action relative
to the findings in the survey. What the complaint does allege is that the
named state employees did not do their jobs. However, no corrective
action has resulted from this claimed malfeasance. Therefore, we
conclude no justiciable claim has been raised.
{¶14} Based upon these specific findings in this court's prior opinions, we deny
appellant's first assignment of error herein and affirm the trial court's dismissal of
appellant's complaint without prejudice.
{¶15} Assignment of Error I is granted. Assignments of Error II and III are moot.
Guernsey County, Case No. 14 CA 16 7
{¶16} The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Guernsey County, Ohio is
hereby affirmed.
By Farmer, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Baldwin, J. concur.
SGF/sg 106