Latest News

Prepared by: Brandon M. Smith, Esq. & Simone Armour

Graff & McGovern, LPA recently obtained reversals in two separate Ohio administrative appeals—decisions that highlight practical constraints on agency action and the importance of a complete record on review.

1) Hancock County Common Pleas reverses “substantiated neglect” determination after missing record

In Moore v. Hancock County Job & Family Services (“HCJFS”) (Hancock C.P. Case No. 2024 CV 00477), the court reversed and vacated HCJFS’s October 24, 2024, order.

The court’s entry reflects that HCJFS filed certain materials under seal, but no transcript (or recording) of the underlying agency hearing was available; HCJFS advised the court that none existed, because the Ohio Administrative Code did not require preservation.  Because the record was insufficient, the court held an evidentiary hearing to supplement the record.

After briefing, the court noted that HCJFS did not file a response brief.  On the merits, the court found the agency’s decision unsupported by the evidence and concluded the order was “arbitrary and unreasonable,” reversing and vacating the determination and remanding for further action consistent with the decision.

2) Franklin County Common Pleas reverses license revocation attempt as barred by res judicata

In JR Petroleum Inc. v. Columbus Board of Health (Franklin C.P. Case No. 25CV007136), the court reversed the Board’s final order revoking a retail tobacco product sales license. The central issue was whether the agency could proceed with further sanctions following an earlier enforcement action based on the same factual conduct. The court ultimately held that the attempted second, independent, sanction for the same conduct violated res judicata.

Why these decisions matter for regulated parties and businesses

• Agencies need a defensible record. When an administrative decision is appealed, the completeness of the record can become outcome-determinative, particularly where the agency relies on inferences about duties or obligations.
• Courts will enforce procedural guardrails. Administrative appeals are not full “do-overs,” but courts can (and do) vacate decisions that are unsupported, arbitrary, or capricious on the whole record.
• Res judicata can limit repeat enforcement based on the same nucleus of facts. Even where agencies have broad authority, they may be constrained from pursuing serial sanctions that function as a second bite at the apple.

Counsel, Brandon M. Smith represented the appellants in both matters.

---

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Outcomes depend on specific facts and procedural posture. For individualized guidance, please contact Graff & McGovern, LPA, at 614-228-5800.