State ex rel. Dist. 1199, Health Care & Social Serv. Union, SEIU, AFL-CIO v. Lawrence Cty. Gen. Hosp. - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

THE STATE EX REL. DISTRICT 1199, HEALTH CARE AND SOCIAL SERVICE UNION,
SEIU, AFL-CIO, ET AL. v. LAWRENCE COUNTY GENERAL HOSPITAL, D.B.A. RIVER
VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEMS, ET AL.
[Cite as State ex rel. Dist. 1199, Health Care & Social Serv. Union, SEIU, AFL-
CIO v. Lawrence Cty. Gen. Hosp. (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.]
Public records -- Mandamus to compel hospital and its administrator to provide
union with records dealing with employees, copies of job descriptions,
copies of contracts with consultants, and copies of any contracts between
hospital and Ohio State University or Ohio State University Hospital --
Writ granted in part and denied in part, when -- Attorney fees awarded,
when.
(No. 98-837 -- Submitted August 19, 1998 -- Decided October 14, 1998.)
IN MANDAMUS.

Respondent Lawrence County General Hospital, d.b.a. River Valley Health
Systems ("hospital"), was established in 1936 and has occupied its present primary
site since 1937. Lawrence County owns the land and the building of the hospital's
primary site. The hospital pays no rent to Lawrence County for use of the facility.
A bond issue funded the hospital's 1950 expansion, and the bonds were retired
through public taxation. After 1950, there have been additional hospital
expansions that have not been financed with public tax revenues.

As provided for in R.C. Chapter 339, the hospital is a "county hospital,"
which is governed by a board of county hospital trustees. Pursuant to R.C. 339.02,
the Lawrence County Board of Commissioners, the senior county probate judge,
and the senior county court of common pleas judge appointed the board of county
hospital trustees. Under R.C. 339.06, the board of county hospital trustees

manages the hospital. Hospital employees participate in the Public Employees
Retirement System.

An April 1997 independent auditor's report of the hospital referred to the
hospital as a "component unit of Lawrence County, Ohio." The State Auditor
accepted the independent auditor's report in lieu of the audit required by R.C.
117.11 for public offices.

In February and March 1998, relators, District 1199, Health Care and Social
Service Union, SEIU, AFL-CIO, its president, and its secretary-treasurer,
requested that respondents, the hospital and its administrator, provide them with
access to the following records:

"1. Lists of the names, addresses, and job classifications of all employees
employed at the River Valley Health System;

"2. Copies of the job descriptions for all classifications at the facility;

"3. Copies of contracts, if any, with all consultants, including attorneys,
retained to advise you in the areas of personnel matters or labor relations;

"4. Copies of any contracts between your facility and Ohio State University,
or Ohio State University Hospital."

After respondents denied access to the requested records, relators filed this
action for a writ of mandamus to compel respondents to provide copies of the
requested records. Relators also requested an award of reasonable attorney fees.
Respondents have filed an answer, in which they claim that they have now given
relator union some of the names that relators requested, i.e., the names of the
hospital employees whom the union seeks to represent for collective bargaining
purposes.

This cause is now before the court for its determination under S.Ct.Prac.R.
X(5).

2

__________________

Hunter, Smith, Carnahan & Shoub, Michael J. Hunter and Russell E.
Carnahan, for relators.

Arter & Hadden, L.L.P., and Dennis D. Grant, for respondents.
__________________

Per Curiam. Pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. X(5), we must now determine
whether dismissal, an alternative writ, or a peremptory writ is appropriate. In
making this determination, we apply the following standards:

"Under S.Ct.Prac.R. X(5), dismissal is appropriate if it appears beyond
doubt, after presuming the truth of all material factual allegations and making all
reasonable inferences in favor of relator, that relator is not entitled to the requested
extraordinary relief. State ex rel. Edwards v. Toledo City School Dist. Bd. of Edn.
(1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 106, 108, 647 N.E.2d 799, 801-802. If, on the other hand,
the complaint may have merit, an alternative writ should issue. Staff and
Committee Notes to S.Ct.Prac.R. X(5). Finally, if it appears beyond doubt that
relator is entitled to the requested extraordinary relief, a peremptory writ should
issue. State ex rel. Findlay Publishing Co. v. Schroeder (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d
580, 583, 669 N.E.2d 835, 839." State ex rel. Stern v. Mascio (1998), 81 Ohio
St.3d 297, 298, 691 N.E.2d 253, 254.

With the foregoing standards in mind, we now address relators' claim for a
writ of mandamus.

Relators claim entitlement to a writ of mandamus to compel the hospital and
its administrator to provide copies of the requested records. Insofar as relators
have now received some of the requested records, i.e., a list of some of the names
of hospital employees, relators' mandamus claim is denied as moot. State ex rel.
Thomson v. Doneghy (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 222, 685 N.E.2d 537.

3

Regarding the remaining requested records, the hospital and its
administrator initially contend that relators are not entitled to these records
because the hospital is not a "public office" for purposes of R.C. 149.011(A) and
149.43. In reviewing this contention, we must resolve any doubts about the
"public" status of the hospital in favor of finding it a "public office" subject to
R.C. 149.43. State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Univ. of Toledo Found. (1992), 65
Ohio St.3d 258, 260-261, 602 N.E.2d 1159, 1161.

R.C. 149.011(A) defines "[p]ublic office" as any "state agency, public
institution, political subdivision, or any other organized body, office, agency,
institution, or entity established by the laws of this state for the exercise of any
function of government." (Emphasis added.)

The hospital is a "public office" for purposes of R.C. 149.011(A) and
149.43. "A public hospital, which renders a public service to residents of a county
and which is supported by public taxation, is a `public institution' and thus a
`public office' pursuant to R.C. 149.011(A), making it subject to the public
records disclosure requirements of R.C. 149.43." State ex rel. Fox v. Cuyahoga
Cty. Hosp. Sys. (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 108, 529 N.E.2d 443, paragraph one of the
syllabus. Lawrence County General Hospital is a public hospital that renders a
public service to county residents and is supported by public taxation. The rent-
free use of county property and land by the hospital for its primary site constitutes
support from public taxation. State ex rel. Fostoria Daily Review Co. v. Fostoria
Hosp. Assn. (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 10, 12, 531 N.E.2d 313, 316. The 1950
hospital expansion was also funded by public tax revenues.

In addition, this conclusion, that the hospital is a "public office" subject to
R.C. 149.43, is supported by the other uncontroverted evidence here, i.e., PERS
membership for hospital employees, appointment of hospital trustees by county

4

officials in accordance with R.C. 339.01 et seq., and treatment by the State
Auditor of the hospital as a public office for purposes of R.C. 117.11.

The hospital and its administrator next assert that relators are not entitled to
a writ of mandamus to compel disclosure of the remaining requested records
because of a pending declaratory judgment action in common pleas court brought
by the hospital to resolve the issue of whether it is a "public office" for purposes
of R.C. 149.011(A) and 149.43.

Respondents' assertion, however, lacks merit because persons seeking
public records under R.C. 149.43 need not establish the lack of an adequate
remedy at law in order to be entitled to a writ of mandamus. State ex rel.
McGowan v. Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth. (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 518, 520, 678
N.E.2d 1388, 1389; State ex rel. Steckman v. Jackson (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 420,
426-427, 639 N.E.2d 83, 88-89.

It is further evident that the requested records are subject to disclosure under
R.C. 149.43. Respondents do not assert the applicability of any exemption to
disclosure.

Based on the foregoing, we grant a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel
respondents to provide copies of the remaining requested records. No further
evidence or argument is required for the court to resolve this case. See State ex
rel. Bowman v. Columbiana Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 398, 401,
674 N.E.2d 694, 696.

Finally, we award attorney fees to relators. Unlike Fox, 39 Ohio St.3d at
112, 529 N.E.2d at 447, where we denied attorney fees because there was a
"reasonable legal basis for respondents' refusal to produce the requested
documents," there was no reasonable basis here, particularly given precedent on
the "public office" issue. See Fox and Fostoria Daily Review. Relators are

5

ordered to submit a bill and documentation in support of their request for attorney
fees in accordance with the guidelines set forth in DR 2-106.
Writ granted in part
and denied in part.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.

6