Baker v. Dept. of Job Fam. Serv., Unpublished Decision (3-11-2005)
Baker v. Dept. of Job Fam. Serv., Unpublished Decision (3-11-2005)
Opinion of the Court
{¶ 2} Appellant had appealed to Ohio Department of Job and Family Services ("ODJFS") regarding a determination that he had received more food stamps than he was entitled. A hearing was scheduled for October 22, 2003, on appellant's appeal, with LCDJFS in Toledo. Appellant missed this hearing date and sought to have it rescheduled. LCDJFS denied appellant's request, finding that he had not established a "good reason" for not coming to his hearing. In its November 13, 2003 decision, ODJFS affirmed the decision of LCDJFS which denied appellant's request for a new hearing date and dismissed appellant's hearing request as "abandoned."
{¶ 3} On December 17, 2003, appellant appealed ODJFS's "Administrative Appeal Decision," entered on November 13, 2003, to the common pleas court. The sole "defendant-appellee" named on appellant's notice of appeal, however, was LCDJFS. On July 8, 2004, the trial court dismissed appellant's appeal for having failed to name or serve the proper party in his administrative appeal. Appellant appealed the dismissal of his administrative appeal in the common pleas to this court and raises the following issues as his assignments of error:
{¶ 4} "I. Whether, when the appellant attached the appropriate decision appealed from, to his timely filed Notice of Appeal he met the requirement of Appellate Rule 4(a)?
{¶ 5} "II. Whether, when the appellant named the inappropriate party in captioning the case, in that the appellant mistakenly named the lesser party who made the prior decision in the instant case, which decision had been upheld in the appropriate decision appealed from, attached to the Notice of Appeal, the mistake was an omission due to inadvertence, omission mechanical in nature, not intentionally excluded, and the court was in error to dismiss the case?
{¶ 6} "III. Whether in the interest of justice appellant's application to amend it's appeal, to amend form, to provide for naming proper party to appeal will be granted?"
{¶ 7} Pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 8} Appellant argues that he complied with App.R. 4(A); however, we find App.R. 4(A) is inapplicable to appellant's appeal in the common pleas court. Appellant's administrative appeal is actually governed by R.C.
{¶ 9} Appellant additionally argues that he should have been allowed to amend his appeal. We find, however, that although appellant had requested to amend his notice of appeal to "include damages for violating his civil rights" and his "human right to hearing before guilt was determined," appellant never actually sought leave to amend his notice of appeal to name the proper party. Having failed to raise the issue in the trial court, we are unable to address appellant's request herein.
{¶ 10} Accordingly, we find appellant's assignments of error not well-taken. On consideration whereof, the court finds substantial justice has been done the party complaining and the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Pursuant to App.R. 24, costs are assessed to appellant.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See, also, 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4, amended 1/1/98.
Handwork, J., Singer, P.J., Parish, J., concur.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- William M. Baker v. Lucas County Dept. of Job and Family Services
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Unpublished