THE COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
ASHTABULA COUNTY, OHIO
JAMES A. DRAGON,
Appellee, :
CASE NO. 2005-A-0017
Administrative Appeal from the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2004
CV 570.
Judgment: Affirmed.
Richard L. Dana, 3537 North Ridge Road, Perry, OH 44081 (For Appellee).
Jim Petro, Attorney General, State Office Tower, 17th Floor, 30 East Broad Street,
Columbus, OH 43215, and Patrick MacQueeney, Assistant Attorney General, State Office
Building, 11th Floor, 615 West Superior Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44113 (For Appellant).
DIANE V. GRENDELL, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Director, Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, appeals
the judgment of Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas, reversing the decision of
the Ohio Unemployment Compensation Review Commission denying appellee, James
A. Dragon, unemployment compensation. For the following reasons, the judgment of
the common pleas court is affirmed.
{¶2} Dragon was employed from December 2002 to July 2003 by Ruff Neon &
Lighting Maintenance Company of Mentor, Ohio. Dragon worked for Ruff Neon &
Lighting installing signs. Dragon was terminated from his employment with Ruff Neon &
Lighting on July 21, 2003, for “an accumulation of things that he was doing.” According
to Tom Ruff, president of Ruff Neon & Lighting, Dragon was repeatedly disruptive by
arguing about his wages and benefits during working hours. On July 1, 2003, Dragon
installed a sign in the wrong position. Later, Dragon argued with Tom Ruff about the
incident and referred to Ruff as an “asshole” in a comment made to fellow-employee,
Lou Gulf. On July 17, 2003, Dragon had a telephone conversation with company vicepresident,
Kelli E. Ruff, regarding his wages and medical benefits. Kelli Ruff testified
that during the conversation Dragon called her a “liar” and accused her of stealing
money from him. After the conversation with Kelli, the decision was made to terminate
Dragon.
{¶3} Dragon maintained he was terminated for engaging in union activities.
Dragon denied referring to Tom Ruff as an “asshole” or calling Kelli Ruff a “liar” and
maintained that the sign incident was neither his fault nor grounds for termination.
{¶4} Dragon applied for unemployment compensation benefits by filing an
application for determination of benefit rights beginning with the week ending July 26,
2003. The director for the Department of Job and Family Services allowed Dragon’s
claim, finding that “there was not enough fault on the part of the claimant *** that an
ordinary person would find the discharge justifiable.” See R.C. 4141.28. The director’s
determination of unemployment compensation benefits was mailed to Ruff Neon &
Lighting on August 13, 2003.
{¶5} Pursuant to R.C. 4141.281(A), Ruff Neon & Lighting had twenty-one days,
or until September 3, 2003, to appeal the director’s determination of benefit rights. Ruff
Neon & Lighting maintains that notice of appeal was faxed to the Department of Job and
Family Services on September 1, 2003. On November 26, 2003, the director issued a
redetermination dismissing Ruff Neon & Lighting’s appeal of the August 13, 2003
determination. The director found that Ruff Neon & Lighting’s appeal, “filed on
November 06, 2003, was not made within the time limit prescribed by law and cannot be
accepted as a timely appeal.”
{¶6} Ruff Neon & Lighting timely appealed the director’s redetermination. On
December 16, 2003, the director transferred jurisdiction over Dragon’s claim to the
review commission pursuant to R.C. 4141.281(C)(1). On February 20, 2004, the review
commission reversed the director’s November 26, 2003 dismissal of Ruff Neon &
Lighting’s appeal, finding that a timely appeal had been filed on September 1, 2003, and
scheduled a hearing on the merits of the appeal. Dragon did not appeal the decision of
the review commission.
{¶7} On April 1, 2004, a hearing was held on Ruff Neon & Lighting’s appeal of
the initial decision to allow Dragon’s claim for unemployment compensation. On April 6,
the review commission reversed the director’s initial determination and found that
Dragon had been “discharged for just cause in connection with work,” specifically,
Dragon “showed a disregard for the employer’s interests and his conduct also
constituted insubordination.” On May 18, 2004, the review commission denied Dragon’s
request for further review of this matter.
{¶8} Pursuant to R.C. 4141.282, Dragon appealed the review commission’s
decisions of May 18, 2004, April 6, 2004, and February 20, 2004, to the Ashtabula
County Court of Common Pleas.
{¶9} The court of common pleas found that the review commission’s decision
of February 20, 2004, reinstating Ruff Neon & Lighting’s appeal of the director’s initial
decision, was unlawful, unreasonable, and against the manifest weight of the evidence.
The only evidence found by the lower court that Ruff Neon & Lighting had timely filed a
notice of appeal of the initial determination was a document dated September 3, 2003,
but allegedly faxed to the Department of Job and Family Services on September 1,
2003. This document purports to provide “the specific details” the Department of Job
and Family Services had requested regarding Dragon’s termination. The document
describes incidents involving Dragon occurring on July 1, 2003, and July 16, 2003, and
is signed by the Ruff Neon & Lighting’s president, Thomas A. Ruff. The lower court
noted that “there is absolutely no indication [Ruff] is requesting a review of the
determination initially made *** on August 13, 2003.” The trial court also noted that the
words “review” and “appeal” are not found in the document. Accordingly, the court was
of the opinion that “a fair interpretation of this letter is that it is submitting additional facts
to supplement the facts already submitted” rather than indicating the intention to
challenge the August 13, 2003 decision.
{¶10} The lower court further continued that, although moot, Dragon was denied
due process rights by the review commission’s “unreasonable refusal” to hear testimony
from Lou Gulf, a witness to several of the incidents for which Dragon was allegedly
terminated.
{¶11} The lower court entered judgment on January 28, 2005. Ruff Neon &
Lighting timely appeals raising the following assignments of error:
{¶12} “[1.] The Ashtabula Common Pleas Court’s decision reversing the Review
Commission’s denial of Claimant’s unemployment benefits was unlawful and
unreasonable where the court failed to apply either the statutory or common law
standard of review.
{¶13} [2.] The Ashtabula Common Pleas Court erred by not recognizing the
review commission’s factual determinations that Claimant was discharged for
insubordination which constitutes just cause, a statutory basis for denying Claimant
unemployment benefits.”
{¶14} A common pleas court reviews the decision of the review commission to
determine if the decision “was unlawful, unreasonable, or against the manifest weight of
the evidence.” R.C. 4141.282(H). If the commission’s decision is unlawful,
unreasonable, or against the manifest weight of the evidence, the court “shall reverse,
vacate, or modify the decision, or remand the matter to the commission. Otherwise, the
court shall affirm the decision of the commission.” Id. With respect to the review
commission’s determination whether an employee is terminated for “just cause,” the
court of appeals applies the same standard as the common pleas court. Tzangas,
Plakas & Mannos v. Ohio Bur. of Emp. Serv., 73 Ohio St.3d 694, 1995-Ohio-206, at
paragraph one of the syllabus. Neither the court of appeals nor the court of common
pleas is “permitted to make factual findings or to determine the credibility of witnesses.”
Irvine v. State Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev. (1985), 19 Ohio St.3d 15, 18 (citation
omitted).
{¶15} Although the resolution of factual questions is for the board of review, “it is
the responsibility of reviewing courts to reverse board of review rulings which reach
unreasonable conclusions based on essentially undisputed evidence.” Frato v. Bur. of
Emp. Serv. (11th Dist. 1991), 77 Ohio App.3d 193, 196, citing Wilson v. Bd. of Review
(1984), 14 Ohio App.3d 309, 311; cf. Irvine v. State Unemployment Comp. Bd. of
Review (1985), 19 Ohio St.3d 15, 18 (“[t]he duty or authority of the courts is to
determine whether the decision of the board [of review] is supported by the evidence in
the record”). Where the facts are essentially undisputed, the issue for the common
pleas court is a question of law, on which the court does not owe the same deference to
the board of review. In such cases, the common pleas court has “a duty to reverse the
decision of the board of review if the board reached an erroneous conclusion.” Frato,
77 Ohio App.3d at 197.
{¶16} Under the first assignment of error, the Department of Job and Family
Services raises several arguments alleging that the common pleas court applied the
wrong standard of review and impermissibly weighed the evidence in rendering its
judgment. Few of these arguments bear any relationship to the January 28, 2005
judgment rendered by the common pleas court.
{¶17} The Department argues that, since the review commission’s factual
determination that Dragon was terminated for “just cause” was supported by evidence in
the record, the common pleas court should have affirmed that judgment. The common
pleas court, however, did not consider the merits of the review commission’s “just
cause” determination. Rather, the court ruled that the Ruff Neon & Lighting had failed to
timely appeal the director’s initial determination. Absent the filing of a timely appeal as
prescribed in R.C. 4141.281(A), the review commission was without jurisdiction to
conduct further review of the director’s determination. Clemons v. Ohio State Dept. of
Job and Family Serv., 10th Dist. No. 03AP-976, 2004-Ohio-6251, at ¶13; Fisher v.
Yellow Freight Sys. Inc., 5th Dist. No. 2003CA00391, 2004-Ohio-5193, at ¶11 (citations
omitted).
{¶18} In the present case, the evidence regarding the timeliness of Ruff Neon &
Lighting’s appeal of the director’s determination is undisputed. The September 3, 2003
document submitted as a “notice of appeal” cannot, by any reasonable interpretation, be
construed as a notice of the intention to appeal the director’s determination, to which the
September 3, 2003 document does not even refer. See Moore v. Foreacher (1951),
156 Ohio St. 255, at syllabus (“notice of appeal” from a decision of the board of review
is sufficient “where the notice of appeal clearly and without any ambiguity or uncertainty
identifies *** the decision from which the appeal is taken”); Altizer v. Bd. of Review
(March 12, 1996), 10th Dist. No. 95APE10-1310, 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 951, at *6 (a
valid appeal requires “a written notice indicating a desire for review of a previous
determination”). Accordingly, the common pleas court ordered the review commission’s
decision of February 20, 2004, to be reversed and vacated, and the director’s
redetermination that Ruff Neon & Lighting’s appeal was not timely filed to be reinstated.
{¶19} The Department of Job and Family Services also complains that the
common pleas court considered “new evidence not in the record,” specifically, the
testimony of Dragon’s fellow employee, Lou Gulf. The Department argues that the
“correct remedy” was for the court “to remand the matter to allow Mr. Gulf’s testimony
so that the Review Commission could weigh Mr. Gulf’s testimony. The court’s order
made no mention of a remand to allow the testimony of Gulf.”
{¶20} In fact, the common pleas court did not consider or weigh Lou Gulf’s
testimony for the reason that Lou Gulf was not permitted to testify before the review
commission. The common pleas court did find that Lou Gulf’s testimony “would have
been highly relevant as to whether [Dragon] had *** committed the acts he was accused
of by the Employer.” Gulf worked with Dragon installing the sign that Ruff maintains
Dragon installed in the wrong position. Gulf was also the person to whom Dragon was
speaking when he allegedly referred to Tom Ruff as an “asshole.” Although the
common pleas court considered the issue “moot,” it found that Dragon “was denied due
process rights by the [review commission’s] unreasonable refusal to hear the testimony
of Lou Gulf.”1 Therefore, if the issue were properly before it, the court stated it would
“remand this action to the Review Commission for an additional hearing and an
additional presentation of relevant evidence.” See R.C. 4141.282(H) (“[i]f the court finds
that the decision of the commission was unlawful, unreasonable, or against the manifest
weight of the evidence, it shall *** remand the matter to the commission”).
{¶21} “The principles of due process in administrative hearings shall be applied
to all hearings conducted under the authority of the [review] commission. *** Hearing
officers have an affirmative duty to question parties and witnesses in order to ascertain
the relevant facts and to fully *** develop the record.” R.C. 4141.281(C)(2). The failure
to allow a party to present witnesses or otherwise develop their case is grounds for
reversing the decision of the review commission. Owens v. Ohio Bur. of Emp. Serv.
(1999), 135 Ohio App.3d 217, 219-221; Perry v. Buckeye Community Servs. (1988), 48
Ohio App.3d 140, 142; Herrell v. Dept. of Transp. (April 28, 1987), 4th Dist. No. 1797,
1987 Ohio App. LEXIS 6685, at *3-*8.
{¶22} Contrary to the Department of Job and Family Services contention, the
common pleas court would have remanded the matter to allow Gulf’s testimony if Ruff
Neon & Lighting had timely appealed.
{¶23} The Department of Job and Family Services next argues that the common
pleas court was without subject matter jurisdiction to review the February 20, 2004
review commission decision. According to the Department, Dragon had thirty days from
the date of that decision to appeal. R.C. 4141.282(A). Instead, Dragon only appealed
the April 6, 2004 review commission decision, finding that Dragon was terminated for
just cause. We disagree.
{¶24} Dragon filed his notice of administrative appeal on June 10, 2004, not, as
the Department claims, from the April 6, 2004 decision, but from the May 18, 2004
review commission decision denying Dragon further review. In his notice of appeal,
Dragon challenges the decisions of the review commission issued on May 18, 2004,
April 6, 2004, and February 20, 2004.
{¶25} “Any interested party, within thirty days after written notice of the final
decision of the unemployment compensation review commission was sent to all
interested parties, may appeal the decision of the commission to the court of common
pleas.” R.C. 4141.282(A). “The disallowance of a request for review constitutes a final
decision by the commission.” R.C. 4141.281(C)(5). Accordingly, neither the February
20, 2004 decision nor the April 6, 2004 decision of the review commission were “final
decisions” from which Dragon could appeal to common pleas court, because neither
decision denied further review of Dragon’s claim. The May 18, 2004 decision, denying
Dragon further review, was a “final decision” and, therefore, was the proper decision
from which to appeal. Anderson v. Interface Elec., Inc., 10th Dist. No. 03AP-354, 2003-
Ohio-7031, at ¶15 (“under the statute, a ‘final decision’ is made: (1) by the review
commission *** and (2) after an aggrieved party requests a review, which is then denied
by the review commission”). The common pleas court did have jurisdiction to review the
February 20, 2004 decision of the review commission.
{¶26} The Department of Job and Family Services’ final argument under its first
assignment of error is that the common pleas court erred by finding that Ruff Neon &
Lighting’s delay in filing an appeal caused Dragon “additional damages” because he
continued to receive benefits for several months while the possibility existed that he was
not entitled to those benefits. This observation by the trial court, however, merely
underscores the rationale for conducting the review process in a timely manner.2 It was
not the basis of the common pleas court’s decision and, therefore, not a basis for
reversing the common pleas court.
{¶27} For the foregoing reasons, the first assignment of error is without merit.
{¶28} Under the second assignment of error, the Department of Job and Family
Services argues that the review commission’s decision that Dragon was terminated for
insubordination amounting to just cause was not unlawful, unreasonable, or against the
manifest weight of the evidence. Therefore, the review commission’s decision should
be affirmed.
{¶29} As discussed above, the common pleas court did not hold that the review
commission’s just cause determination was unlawful, unreasonable, or against the
manifest weight of the evidence. The sole basis for the common pleas court’s decision
was that Ruff Neon & Lighting failed to timely appeal the director’s initial determination
allowing Dragon benefits. The trial court noted in dicta, while acknowledging the issue
was moot, that Dragon was denied due process on account of the review commission’s
unreasonable refusal to allow witness, Lou Gulf, to testify. The observation that Dragon
was denied due process is not the same thing as reviewing the merits of the
commission’s just cause determination. Thus, the Department has failed to raise an
argument that could serve as a basis for reversing the common pleas court.
{¶30} The second assignment of error is without merit.
{¶31} For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Ashtabula County Court of
Common Pleas, reversing and vacating the review commission’s February 20, 2004
decision and reinstating the director’s redetermination regarding the timeliness of Ruff
Neon & Lighting’s appeal, is affirmed.
WILLIAM M. O’NEILL, J., concurs,
CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J., dissents with a Dissenting Opinion.
______________________
CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J., dissenting.
{¶32} Because the Review Commission’s determination that the employer filed a
timely appeal was not unlawful, unreasonable, or against the manifest weight of the
evidence, I respectfully dissent.
{¶33} R.C 4141.281(D)(1) provides in part, “Any timely written notice by an
interested party indicating a desire to appeal shall be accepted.” There exists no
specific form for the notice of appeal. See, Altizer v. Bd. of Review (March 12, 1996),
10th Dist. No. 95APE10-1310, 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 951, 6, construing identical
language in former R.C. 4141.28(I)(1).
{¶34} The notice sent to the employer on August 13, 2003 contains a notice
advising the employer of its right to appeal. The notice states in relevant part: “If you
do not agree with this determination, you may file an appeal ***. Your appeal should
include the claimant’s name, social security number, and additional facts, with
documentation to support the appeal.” (Emphasis added.)
{¶35} In the instant case, the employer sent a notice on September 1 or 3, 2003,
which included the claimant’s name and additional facts demonstrating why Dragon was
fired. Although the correspondence does not explicitly state it is a “notice of appeal” or
request review, it sets forth in substantial part, the information requested in the notice
informing the employer of the right to appeal.
{¶36} In Altizer, the Tenth District Court of Appeals considered facts similar to
those presented here and concluded:
{¶37} “R.C. 4141.28(I)(1) [now R.C. 4141.281(D)(1)] does not require any
specific form for the notice of appeal but only requires a written notice indicating a
desire for review of a previous determination and the reasons for the request. The
notice of determination of benefits does require additional information, such as the basis
for the disagreement with the board's decision, a social security number, and a
signature. The statement filed by Cooley on behalf of the employer minimally complies
with these requirements. To hold that precise or specific language is mandated could
work a disservice to many claimants who represent themselves before the board. Such
a requirement would not be in compliance with the requirements of R.C. 4141.46, which
requires the liberal construction of the unemployment compensation laws.” Id. at 6-7.
{¶38} The factual determination made by the Review Commission when it found
the appeal was timely filed is entitled to deference by both this court and the trial court.
Aliff v. Ohio Bur. of Empl. Serv. (March 9, 2001), 1st Dist. No. C-000238, 2001 Ohio
App. LEXIS 994, 4, citing Tzangas v. Ohio Bur. of Emp. Serv. (1995), 73 Ohio St. 3d
694. Neither the trial court nor we may reverse the Review Commission’s determination
unless it is unlawful, unreasonable, or against the weight of the evidence. Tzangas, 73
Ohio St.3d at paragraph one of the syllabus. In the instant case, the Review
Commission is finding that the employer filed a timely appeal was not unlawful,
unreasonable, or against the manifest weight of the evidence. I would reverse the trial
court’s judgment.
NOTES:
1. The hearing officer did not clearly express a reason why Lou Gulf was not permitted to testify and also
denied Tom Ruff the opportunity to introduce a witness. The common pleas court’s judgment states: “A
review of the transcript indicates that the hearing officer apparently lost control, accused the parties of
entering into a bitch match, and summarily discontinued the proceedings.”
2. The common pleas court’s judgment states, in relevant part: “Ohio Revised Code §4141.281(B)
provides that, once an initial determination is appealed, a redetermination hearing is scheduled within
twenty-one days after receipt of the appeal. Clearly, this relatively short twenty-one day period is
designed to provide timely appeals so that, in the event claimants are receiving benefits, which may later
be reversed, they will not build up a large amount of money that they may be required to pay back to the
Review Commission.”