Title: State ex rel. State Teachers Retirement Bd. v. W. Geauga Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. State Teachers Retirement Bd. v. W. Geauga Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 
87 Ohio St.3d 1220, 1999-Ohio-15.] 
 
 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. STATE TEACHERS RETIREMENT BOARD, APPELLEE, v. WEST 
GEAUGA LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION ET AL., APPELLEES; 
GAETANO ET AL.; APPELLANTS. 
[Cite as State ex rel. State Teachers Retirement Bd. v. W. Geauga Local School 
Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 1220.] 
Appeal dismissed as improvidently allowed. 
(No. 98-2383 — Submitted October 12, 1999 — Decided November 17, 1999.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Geauga County, Nos. 97-G-2066 and 97-G-
2067. 
__________________ 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, Robert C. Maier and Richard C. 
Scott, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee State Teachers Retirement Board. 
 
John P. Tremsyn, Geauga County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for 
appellee West Geauga Local School District Board of Education. 
 
Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli Co., L.P.A., and Jack D. 
Maistros, for appellants Mary Ann Gaetano and Catherine Ann Miller. 
 
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P., Gregory J. Viviani and Ronald J. James, 
for intervening appellee Hawken School. 
__________________ 
 
The cause is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently allowed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. 
 
COOK, J., dissents and would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissents. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting.  The ultimate issue in this case  is 
whether the West Geauga Local School District (“West Geauga”) must make 
 
 
2
retirement contributions on behalf of two employees, Gaetano and Miller.  Only 
persons defined as “teachers” pursuant to R.C. 3307.01(B) are eligible for 
retirement benefits. 
 
The State Teachers Retirement Board (“STRB”) determined that  Gaetano 
and Miller were “teachers” for the purposes of R.C. 3307.01(B).  Pursuant to this 
determination, the STRB found that both Gaetano and Miller were entitled to 
retirement contributions from their employer.  In order to enforce this decision, the 
STRB filed a complaint seeking a writ of mandamus to compel West Geauga to 
make contributions for Gaetano’s and Miller’s retirement benefits.  The trial court 
rendered judgment in favor of West Geauga.  In effect, the trial court reversed the 
STRB’s decision that Gaetano and Miller were teachers.  The appellate court 
affirmed. 
 
Originally, we accepted jurisdiction over this case.  However, the majority 
now dismisses this case as having been improvidently allowed.  For the following 
reasons, I would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and reinstate the 
decision of the STRB.  Therefore, I dissent. 
 
R.C. 3307.01(B) states: 
 
“In all cases of doubt, the state teachers retirement board shall determine 
whether any person is a teacher, and its decision shall be final.”   (Emphasis 
added.) 
 
Where a statute indicates that an administrative decision shall be final, there 
will be no judicial review of that determination absent an abuse of discretion.  See, 
e.g., State v. Ohio Stove Co. (1950), 154 Ohio St. 27, 42 O.O. 117, 93 N.E.2d 291.  
Where an agency has “accumulated substantial expertise,” it must be given due 
deference in interpreting statutes within its delegated authority.  State ex rel. 
McLean v. Indus. Comm. (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 90, 92, 25 OBR 141, 143, 495 
N.E.2d 370, 372.  Further, an agency’s findings of fact should also be given 
 
 
3
deference.  Ohio Historical Soc. v. State Emp. Relations Bd.  (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 
466, 471, 613 N.E.2d 591, 595. 
 
The STRB made factual determinations.  Under State ex rel. Mallory v. Pub. 
Emp. Retirement Bd. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 235, 694 N.E.2d 1356, the STRB is 
permitted to apply the law to these facts.  Therefore, based on the above authority, 
and finding no abuse of that discretion, I would find that the STRB’s decision that 
Gaetano and Miller were teachers should stand.  Accordingly, I would reverse the 
judgment of the appellate court with instructions for the trial court to reinstate the 
decision of the STRB.