3Jtt the *Uprcttye (Cdurt of ®Old
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
3Jtt the *UprCttYE (CDUrt of ®olD LORETTA PACK, Case Nos. 06-1207 06-1343 Plaintiff-Appellee, On Appeal from the V. Licking County Court of Appeals, CHARLOTTE OSBORN, Fifth Appellate District Defendant-Appellee, Court of Appeals Case No. 05 CA 83 LICKING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF JOB AND FAMILY SERVICES, Defendarit-Appellant. REPLY BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL MARC DANN IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT LICKING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF JOB AND FAMILY SERVICES ROBERT BECKER (0010188) MARC DANN (0039425) Licking County Prosecutor Attomey General of Ohio RACHEL O. SHIPLEY* (0074934) ELISE PORTER (0055548) Assistant Prosecutor Acting Solicitor General *Counsel ofRecord STEPHEN P. CARNEY*(0063460) 20 South Second Street *Counsel of Record Newark, Ohio 43055 Deputy Solicitor 740-670-5255 ARA MEKHJIAN (00688 740-670-5241 fax Assistant Solicitor ^.^ 30 East Broad Street, 17t Floor ^ ^ Counsel for Defendant-Appellant Columbus, Ohio 43215 Licking County Department of Job and 614-466-8980 Family Services 614-466-5087fax [email protected] gUppE^^MqRCI ^^N^ELV ^VO/ CLE^ WILLIAM J. BROWNING* (0010856) * Counsel of Record Counsel for Amicus Curiae URr ^F OFJJ^ Browning & Meyer, Co. LPA Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann 8101 North High Street Columbus, Ohio 43235 614-471-0085 614-471-8132 fax DENNIS R. NEWMAN (0023351) JEFFREY A. STANKUNAS (0072438) MARK H. TROUTMAN (0076390) Issac, Brant, Ledman & Teetor, LLP 250 East Broad Street, Suite 900 Columbus, Ohio 43215 Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee Loretta Pack CAROLYN J. CARNES* (0066756) *Counsel ofRecord Morrow, Gordon & Byrd, Ltd. 33 West Main Street P.O. Box 4190 Newark, Ohio 43058 740-345-9611 740-349-9816 fax Guardian ad litem for Defendant-Appellee Charlotte Osborn ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF CONTENTS ................. ................................................................................................i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...........................................................................................................ii INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................... 4 A. Pack's declaratory judgment action is either an impermissible collateral attack on an administrative agency decision or an irrelevant action . .........................................................4 B. The General Assembly has entrusted Medicaid eligibility decisions to ODJFS, and allowing Pack's declaratory judgment action to proceed would undercut that legislative decision . ............................................................................................................... 7 C. Pack's declaratory judgment action circumvented administrative procedures because it prevented Licking County from exercising its statutorily-mandated duties . ....................12 D. Osbom's Medicaid eligibility should be determined in accordance with the laws in effect on the date when the agency examined her Medicaid eligibility . .............................. 13 E. Arnici's discussions regarding special needs trusts are irrelevant . ....................................... 16 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................17 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . ..................................................................................... unnumbered TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page(s) Burger Brewing Co. v. Thomas (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 377 .............................................................................................................9, 12 Carnahan v. Ohio Dept. of Hum. Servs. (2000), 139 Ohio App.3d 214 ...........................................................................................................16 Lorain City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. State Employment Relations Bd. (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 257 ..................................................................................................................9 Martin v. Ohio Dept. Hum. Servs. (2nd Dist. 1998), 130 Ohio App.3d 512 ...........................................................................................................14 Metz v. Ohio Dept. Hum. Servs. (6th Dist. 2001), 145 Ohio App.3d 304 ...........................................................................................................14 Miller v. Ohio Dept. Hum. Servs. (8th Dist. 1995), 105 Ohio App.3d 539 ...........................................................................................................14 Ohio Citizens Bank v. Mills (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 153 .............................................................................................................2, 14 Ohio Farmers Indemnity Co. v. Chames (1959), 170 Ohio St. 209 ..................................................................................................................... 6 Prior v. Ohio Dept. Hum Servs. (10th Dist. 1997), 123 Ohio App.3d 381 ...........................................................................................................14 Shoemaker v. First National Bank of Ottawa ( 1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 304 ...................................................................................................................7 Stanton v. State Tax Comm. (1926), 114 Ohio St. 658 .....................................................................................................................8 State ex rel. Albright v. Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County (1991), 60 Ohio St.3d 40 ............................................................ 7 State ex rel. Bentley & Sons Co. v. Pierce (1917), 96 Ohio St. 44 ......................................................................................................................... 9 State ex rel. Mallory v. Pub. Emp. Retirement Bd. (1988), 82 Ohio St.3d 235 ...................................................................................................................9 West Virginia v. Thompson (4th Cir. 2007), F.3d _, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 1143 .............................................................................8 ii Young v. Ohio Dept. ofHum. Servs. (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 547, 1996-Ohio-558 ......................................................................................15 Constitutional Provisions, Statutes, and Rules Page(s) R.C. 5111.151 .........................................................................................................................passim R.C. 5111.011 .............................................................................................................................. 7,9 R.C. 5111.012 ........................................................................................................................7, 9, 11 R.C. 5101.35 .............................................................................................................................. 8,13 Ohio Admin. Code 5101:1-39-05(C)(1) ..........................................................................................7 Ohio Admin. Code 5101:1-39-27.1 .....................................................................................7, 11, 16 Ohio Admin. Code Ch. 5101:1-6-2 .................................................................................................8 Ohio Admin. Code Ch. 5101:1-6-9 .................................................................................................8 Other Authorities Page(s) Gov.Bar.R. I(11)(B) ......................................................................................................................... 6 INTRODUCTION As our opening amicus brief explained, this case involves a trustee's attempt to improperly use a declaratory judgment action to control the outcome of an administrative agency decision- here, a decision about whether the trust's beneficiary is eligible for Medicaid. Specifically, Loretta Pack, trustee of the Maebelle W. Osbom Trust (the "Trust"), filed a declaratory judgment action challenging a decision that Charlotte Osbom, a Trust beneficiary, was ineligible for Medicaid. The Licking County Department of Job and Family Services ("Licking JFS") made the initial decision that Osborn was ineligible for Medicaid, and the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services ("ODJFS") upheld that decision in an administrative appeal. As our amicus further explained, the administrative appeal is the only proper forum for resolving Osborn's Medicaid eligibility, and common pleas courts do not have jurisdiction to hear declaratory judgment actions that are aimed at controlling Medicaid eligibility decisions. That is true if a plaintiff seeks a conclusory judgment that a given applicant is entitled to Medicaid, and it is equally true if a plaintiff seeks a judgment regarding one of the factors that an agency considers, such as a judgment that a given asset is not "countable" in assessing financial need. Pack now seeks to avoid defending the proposition that declaratory judgment can be used to control administrative decisions, so she instead tries to insist that "this is a trust case" that "does not resolve Charlotte Osborn's right to Medicaid benefits." Pack Br. at 7. While this attempt to recast the case is understandable, it fails for several reasons, as explained below. Most important, Pack's attempted use of declaratory judgment fails regardless of whether the judgment would control the Medicaid outcome. If