Case Title: State ex rel. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Mental Retardation & Dev. Disabilities v. Pub. Emps. Retirement Bd.

Citation: 2009-Ohio-4694

Docket Number: 20082314

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2009-09-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Mental Retardation & Dev. Disabilities v. Pub. Emps. 
Retirement Bd., 123 Ohio St.3d 146, 2009-Ohio-4694.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. LUCAS COUNTY BOARD OF MENTAL RETARDATION & 
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, APPELLANT, v. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES 
RETIREMENT BOARD ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Mental Retardation & Dev. Disabilities 
v. Pub. Emps. Retirement Bd., 123 Ohio St.3d 146, 2009-Ohio-4694.] 
Mandamus — Writ sought to compel Public Employees Retirement Board to 
vacate a decision determining that claimants were carryover public 
employees under R.C. 145.01(A)(2) — Court of appeals’ denial of writ 
affirmed. 
(No. 2008-2314 ─ Submitted September 2, 2009 ─ Decided September 16, 2009.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 07AP-582, 
179 Ohio App.3d 439, 2008-Ohio-5754. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment denying a writ of mandamus 
sought by appellant, Lucas County Board of Mental Retardation and 
Developmental Disabilities1 (“Lucas County MRDD”), to compel appellee Ohio 
Public Employees Retirement Board to vacate its decision that appellees Anita 
Allen, Monica Armstrong, and Mary C. Dunn-Brock (“claimants”) were 
carryover employees of the Lucas County MRDD while employed with 
Community Living Options, Inc. (“CLO”), a nonprofit corporation, and to enter a 
decision that the claimants were not carryover employees while employed at CLO 
and thus were not entitled to public-employee service credit for that employment.  
                                                 
1.  The General Assembly has enacted Sub.S.B. No. 79, which, inter alia, changes the names of 
county boards of mental retardation and developmental disabilities to county boards of 
developmental disabilities.  It is scheduled to become effective in early October. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Because the retirement board did not abuse its discretion in so deciding, we affirm 
the judgment of the court of appeals denying the writ of mandamus. 
Creation and Implementation of Supported-Living Services 
{¶ 2} “Supported living” includes services provided to mentally retarded 
and developmentally disabled individuals to enable them to live in a residence of 
their choice.  R.C. 5126.01(U)(1)(a).  Before the 1989 enactment of Am.Sub.H.B. 
No. 257, 143 Ohio Laws, Part III, 3855, Lucas County MRDD had not provided 
supported-living services to mentally retarded and developmentally disabled 
individuals in Lucas County.  Lucas County MRDD had previously provided 
residential services only to qualifying individuals residing in group homes.  Under 
the amendment, county boards of mental retardation and developmental 
disabilities were required to select county residents for which supported living 
was to be provided and to identify these residents’ individual service needs.  R.C. 
5126.41, formerly R.C. 5126.45.  County boards were authorized to enter into 
contracts with other boards and entities, including private, nonprofit corporations, 
to provide the required services.  R.C. 5126.05(C). 
{¶ 3} In October 1989, the Lucas County MRDD accepted an 
appropriation from the Ohio Department of Mental Retardation and 
Developmental Disabilities for the specific purpose of planning, developing, and 
implementing supported-living services.  The Lucas County MRDD specified that 
its intent in accepting the appropriation was to assume all incumbent 
responsibilities in accordance with R.C. 5126.40 to 5126.47 “for the coordination 
and management of supported living services.” 
{¶ 4} Lucas County MRDD subsequently created CLO, a nonprofit 
corporation,  with the intent to transfer administration of the supported-living 
program from the board to the corporation.  CLO was incorporated in December 
1990.  In March 1991, Lucas County MRDD entered into a contract with CLO in 
which CLO would operate specified functions of the board’s supported-living 
January Term, 2009 
3 
 
program, including the selection of supported-living providers, the development, 
negotiation, monitoring, and auditing of supported-living contracts, the 
development of generic and nonpaid services and support, and assistance with 
ongoing needs assessments. 
{¶ 5} In the interim between Lucas County MRDD’s acceptance of the 
state appropriation to provide supported-living services and its contract with CLO 
for the administration of the services by the nonprofit corporation, Lucas County 
MRDD provided supported-living services. 
Claimants’ Employment with Lucas County MRDD and with CLO 
{¶ 6} The claimants, Anita Allen, Monica Armstrong, and Mary C. 
Dunn-Brock, worked initially as case managers for Lucas County MRDD.  Allen 
later became a habilitation coordinator for the board.  The claimants resigned their 
positions with Lucas County MRDD and began working for CLO as quality-
assurance coordinators and specialists. 
Retirement-System Proceedings 
{¶ 7} In 2004, the Ohio Public Employee Retirement System (“PERS”) 
issued staff determinations finding that claimants were carryover public 
employees while employed by CLO.  Lucas County appealed, and in 2006, the 
retirement system’s general counsel issued a senior-staff membership 
determination upholding the previous PERS staff decisions. 
{¶ 8} On further appeal by the county to the retirement board pursuant to 
Ohio Adm.Code 145-1-11, a PERS hearing examiner held a hearing.  At the 
hearing, claimant Anita Allen testified that the duties performed by the claimants 
with Lucas County MRDD before they resigned were the same as or similar to the 
duties they performed with CLO.  Whether they were employed as a case 
manager or a habilitation coordinator at Lucas County MRDD, or as a quality-
assurance coordinator or specialist at CLO, the claimants assessed and monitored 
the needs of mentally retarded and developmentally disabled clients.  Lori Stanfa, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
the first executive director of CLO, testified that when CLO first began 
operations, the Lucas County MRDD case managers initially assisted in 
developing the plans for supported-living clients until CLO “took over that 
function later.” 
{¶ 9} The hearing examiner issued a comprehensive report in which he 
recommended that the retirement board uphold the PERS senior-staff 
determination that claimants were carryover employees — and were therefore 
entitled to PERS service credit – when they worked for CLO.  In his report, the 
hearing examiner found that the “county’s case managers and habilitation 
coordinators who became CLO quality assurance specialists and coordinators 
continued * * * to perform the core function of providing housing and habilitation 
resources to persons with mental retardation and developmental disabilities.” 
{¶ 10} In February 2007, the retirement board accepted the hearing 
examiner’s findings of fact and conclusions of law and found that claimants were 
public employees while employed with CLO and were thus eligible for PERS 
service credit as carryover employees for these periods. 
Mandamus Case 
{¶ 11} Lucas County MRDD filed an action in the Court of Appeals for 
Franklin County challenging the retirement board’s decision.  In a subsequent 
amended complaint, Lucas County MRDD requested a writ of mandamus to 
compel the retirement board to vacate its decision that the claimants were 
carryover public employees while employed with CLO and to enter a decision 
that the county board was not liable for PERS contributions for the claimants’ 
CLO employment.  The retirement board submitted a certified record of the PERS 
administrative proceedings, and the parties filed briefs on the merits of the 
mandamus claim. 
{¶ 12} A court of appeals magistrate issued a decision recommending that 
the court deny the requested writ of mandamus.  In November 2008, the court of 
January Term, 2009 
5 
 
appeals overruled Lucas County MRDD’s objections to the magistrate’s decision 
and denied the writ. 
{¶ 13} This cause is now before the court upon Lucas County MRDD’s 
appeal as of right from the judgment denying the writ. 
Mandamus to Remedy Abuse of Discretion by Retirement Board 
{¶ 14} For the standard of review, Lucas County MRDD initially claims 
that the court should treat the court of appeals’ judgment as a summary judgment 
because the court of appeals, “by dismissing Appellant’s Complaint for Writ of 
Mandamus essentially granted Appellees a motion for summary judgment.”  This 
contention lacks merit.  The court of appeals did not dismiss the mandamus action 
or grant summary judgment; instead, the court denied the writ based on the merits 
as presented by the administrative record and the parties’ briefs. 
{¶ 15} Lucas County MRDD seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the 
retirement board to vacate its decision to award PERS service credit to claimants 
for the time that they were employed by CLO.  “[M]andamus is an appropriate 
remedy where no statutory right of appeal is available to correct an abuse of 
discretion by an administrative body.”  State ex rel. Pipoly v. State Teachers 
Retirement Sys., 95 Ohio St.3d 327, 2002-Ohio-2219, 767 N.E.2d 719, ¶ 14.  In 
the absence of a statutory right to appeal the retirement board’s determination of 
PERS service credit, mandamus is an appropriate remedy.  State ex rel. Schachter 
v. Ohio Pub. Emps. Retirement Bd., 121 Ohio St.3d 526, 2009-Ohio-1704, 905 
N.E.2d 1210, ¶ 24. 
{¶ 16} To be entitled to the requested writ of mandamus, Lucas County 
MRDD was required to establish that the retirement board abused its discretion by 
determining that the claimants were entitled to PERS service credit.  State ex rel. 
Davis v. Pub. Emps. Retirement Bd., 120 Ohio St.3d 386, 2008-Ohio-6254, 899 
N.E.2d 975, ¶ 25.  To prove an abuse of discretion, Lucas County MRDD must 
show that the retirement board’s decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
unconscionable.  Id.  In addition, the retirement board does not abuse its 
discretion if there is sufficient evidence to support its determination.  See State ex 
rel. Marchiano v. School Emps. Retirement Sys., 121 Ohio St.3d 139, 2009-Ohio-
307, 902 N.E.2d 953, ¶ 21; State ex rel. Schaengold v. Ohio Pub. Emps. 
Retirement Sys., 114 Ohio St.3d 147, 2007-Ohio-3760, 870 N.E.2d 719, ¶ 19-20. 
R.C. 145.01(A)(2) Carryover Public Employees 
{¶ 17} The retirement board is vested with the general administration and 
management of PERS.  R.C. 145.04.  “In all cases of doubt, the public employees 
retirement board shall determine whether any person is a public employee, and its 
decision is final.”  R.C. 145.01(A)(4); see also Ohio Adm.Code 145-1-11(D) 
(“The retirement board’s decision on any determination conducted pursuant to 
this rule shall be final and determinative”). 
{¶ 18} Membership in the retirement system “is compulsory upon being 
employed and shall continue as long as public employment continues.”  R.C. 
145.03(A).  The retirement board concluded that the claimants were public 
employees entitled to PERS service credit for their employment with CLO 
because they were carryover employees continuing their public employment 
under R.C. 145.01(A)(2). 
{¶ 19} R.C. 145.01(A)(2) includes as public employees entitled to PERS 
credit those PERS members who perform duties the same as or similar to duties 
that they had previously performed for a public entity when they leave public 
employment to work for a contractor that has contracted to take over what was a 
publicly operated function: 
{¶ 20} “(A) ‘Public employee’ means: 
{¶ 21} “* * * 
{¶ 22} “(2) A person who is a member of the public employees retirement 
system and who continues to perform the same or similar duties under the 
direction of a contractor who has contracted to take over what before the date of 
January Term, 2009 
7 
 
the contract was a publicly operated function.  The governmental unit with which 
the contract has been made shall be deemed the employer for purposes of 
administering this chapter.” 
Same or Similar Duties 
{¶ 23} Lucas County MRDD asserts that the retirement board abused its 
discretion in determining that the claimants were carryover public employees 
under R.C. 145.01(A)(2) because there was no evidence that they performed the 
“same or similar duties” for CLO and the county board before they resigned. 
{¶ 24} “In analyzing this statute, we determine the legislative intent by 
reading words and phrases in context and construing them in accordance with 
rules of grammar and common usage.”  See State ex rel. Shisler v. Ohio Pub. 
Emps. Retirement Sys., 122 Ohio St.3d 148, 2009-Ohio-2522, 909 N.E.2d 610, ¶ 
18.  “ ‘Same’ means ‘resembling in every way’ and ‘identical,’ and ‘similar’ 
means ‘very much alike,’ ‘comparable,’ and ‘alike in substance or essentials.’ ”  
State ex rel. Van Dyke v. Pub. Emps. Retirement Bd., 99 Ohio St.3d 430, 2003-
Ohio-4123, 793 N.E.2d 438, ¶ 31, quoting Webster’s Third New International 
Dictionary (1986) 2007 and 2120. 
{¶ 25} The evidence before the retirement board included claimant 
Allen’s testimony that the duties performed by the claimants as case managers 
and habilitation coordinator for Lucas County MRDD were similar to the duties 
they had performed as quality-assurance coordinators and specialists for CLO.  
The claimants assessed and monitored the needs of mentally retarded and 
developmentally disabled clients while working for both Lucas County MRDD 
and for CLO.  Allen also provided a detailed point-by-point comparison of the 
duties of case managers at the county board and quality-assurance coordinators at 
CLO.  There was thus sufficient evidence to support the retirement board’s 
determination that the claimants performed duties at CLO similar to those that 
they had previously performed at Lucas County MRDD. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
{¶ 26} Nor did the retirement board or PERS abuse its discretion by 
applying a core-function analysis to determine if the duties performed for the 
county board and for CLO were similar for purposes of R.C. 145.01(A)(2).  They 
determined that the “county’s case managers and habilitation coordinators who 
became CLO quality assurance specialists and coordinators continued * * * to 
perform the core function of providing housing and habilitation resources to 
persons with mental retardation and developmental disabilities.”  We must give 
due deference to their reasonable interpretation of the legislative scheme.  See 
State ex rel. Gill v. School Emps. Retirement Sys. of Ohio, 121 Ohio St.3d 567, 
2009-Ohio-1358, 906 N.E.2d 415, ¶ 28.  As the court of appeals properly 
concluded, “examining the ‘function’ inherent in claimants’ duties with [Lucas 
County MRDD] and with CLO necessarily indicates to what extent the jobs were 
similar.”  179 Ohio App.3d 439, 2008-Ohio-5754, 902 N.E.2d 503, ¶ 5. 
Contractor Taking Over a Publicly Operated Function 
{¶ 27} Lucas County MRDD next asserts that the retirement board abused 
its discretion in failing to consider that the claimants’ positions with the county 
board were not outsourced, eliminated, or otherwise reassigned. 
{¶ 28} The county board’s argument lacks merit.  It was necessary for the 
retirement board to find only that CLO had “contracted to take over what before 
the date of the contract was a publicly operated function.”  R.C. 145.01(A)(2).  
The evidence established that the county board accepted the state appropriation to 
provide supported-living services and assumed the responsibilities to coordinate 
and manage these services well before CLO started providing these services.  
CLO’s first executive director admitted that CLO “took over” the function of 
developing plans for supported-living clients from case managers employed by 
the county board.  This was sufficient evidence to support the retirement board’s 
conclusion that CLO had taken over what had previously been a public function 
performed by the county board. 
January Term, 2009 
9 
 
{¶ 29} Moreover, insofar as Lucas County MRDD attempts to rely on 
new matter that is not contained in the record on appeal, we cannot consider it.  
See State ex rel. Wells v. Jefferson Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 122 Ohio St.3d 
39, 2009-Ohio-2358, 907 N.E.2d 1166, ¶ 1. 
{¶ 30} Finally, Lucas County MRDD’s reliance on State ex rel. Mallory v. 
Pub. Emps. Retirement Bd. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 235, 694 N.E.2d 1356, and Van 
Dyke, 99 Ohio St.3d 430, 2003-Ohio-4123, 793 N.E.2d 438, is misplaced.  
Neither of those cases, in which we addressed the carryover provision of R.C. 
145.01(A)(2),  supports issuance of the requested writ of mandamus here. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 31} Based on the foregoing, the retirement board acted neither 
unreasonably, arbitrarily, nor unconscionably in determining that the claimants 
were carryover public employees under R.C. 145.01(A)(2) during their 
employment as quality-assurance coordinators and specialists with CLO.  The 
retirement board’s decision is supported by sufficient evidence.  Therefore, we 
affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the requested extraordinary 
relief in mandamus. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and Andrew K. 
Ranazzi, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant. 
 
Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and Laura Erebia Parsons and Janyce 
C. Katz, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee Ohio Public Employees 
Retirement Board. 
 
Walter J. Gerhardstein Jr., for appellee Mary C. Dunn-Brock. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
 
 
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., and Michael J. Settineri and 
Megan A. Robinson, for appellee Anita Allen. 
__________________