Title: OHIOTELNET.COM, INC. v. Windstream Ohio, Inc.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as In 
re Complaint of OHIOTELNET.COM, INC. v. Windstream Ohio, Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2013-
Ohio-4721.] 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2013-OHIO-4721 
IN RE COMPLAINT OF OHIOTELNET.COM, INC., APPELLANT, v. 
WINDSTREAM OHIO, INC., INTERVENING APPELLEE; PUBLIC UTILITIES 
COMMISSION, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as In re Complaint of OHIOTELNET.COM, INC. v. Windstream 
Ohio, Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-4721.] 
Public utilities—Telecommunication services—Appellant must show that Public 
Utilities Commission’s orders were unreasonable or unlawful—Orders 
affirmed. 
(No. 2012-0027—Submitted August 21, 2013—Decided October 29, 2013.) 
APPEAL from the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, No. 09-515-TP-CSS. 
____________________ 
 
O’CONNOR, C.J. 
SUMMARY 
{¶ 1} Appellant, OHIOTELNET.COM, INC. (“Ohiotelnet”), is a 
competitive local exchange carrier and provides telephone and other 
telecommunications services in Licking and surrounding counties in Ohio.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Intervening appellee, Windstream Ohio, Inc., is an incumbent local exchange 
carrier that sells telecommunications services at both wholesale and retail prices.  
Ohiotelnet purchases services from Windstream at wholesale rates and resells the 
services to end-user consumers at retail rates. 
{¶ 2} Ohiotelnet filed a complaint with the Public Utilities Commission 
(“PUCO” or “commission”) pursuant to R.C. 4905.26, alleging that Windstream 
had overcharged for its services and submitted inaccurate billing invoices to 
Ohiotelnet.  Ohiotelnet further alleged that Windstream had failed to act in good 
faith in resolving billing disputes and had refused to issue billing credits on 
thousands of valid disputes. 
{¶ 3} The commission denied the complaint after finding that Ohiotelnet 
had failed to sustain its burden of proof.  Specifically, the commission found that 
Ohiotelnet failed to submit sufficient credible evidence that Windstream had 
refused to issue credits for valid billing disputes.  In re Complaint of 
OHIOTELNET.COM, INC. v. Windstream Ohio, Inc., Pub. Util. Comm. No. 09-
515-TP-CSS, 
at 
19-20 
(Sept. 
20, 
2011), 
available 
at 
http://dis.puc.state.oh.us/DocumentRecord.aspx?DocID=53d57a11-d632-425d-
aea5-e8078262c376; 
and 
at 
2-3 
(Nov. 
9, 
2011), 
available 
at 
http://dis.puc.state.oh.us/DocumentRecord.aspx?DocID=25fb2113-da0a-49b2-
b12b-43afca3b824d. 
{¶ 4} Ohiotelnet appealed to this court, raising one proposition of law.  
Ohiotelnet contends that the commission disregarded its duty by not conducting a 
complete and thorough review of the evidence.  Ohiotelnet, however, has failed to 
demonstrate error.  Therefore, we affirm the commission’s orders. 
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
{¶ 5} Ohiotelnet’s relationship with Windstream began in 2001 when the 
commission approved an interconnection agreement between Ohiotelnet and 
Alltel Ohio, Inc., the predecessor to Windstream.  In re Petition of 
January Term, 2013 
 
3
OHIOTELNET.COM, INC., for Arbitration of Interconnection Rates, Terms & 
Conditions & Related Arrangements with ALLTEL, Ohio, Inc., Pub. Util. Comm. 
No. 00-1601-TP-ARB (Mar. 1, 2001), available at http://dis.puc.state.oh.us/ 
DocumentRecord.aspx?DocID=CB3803290D87A4B685256A030055082D.  The 
agreement established rates, charges, terms, and conditions for the interconnection 
of the parties’ telecommunications networks and included procedures for 
processing service orders, billing invoices, and billing disputes. 
{¶ 6} Ohiotelnet has been submitting billing disputes to Windstream on a 
regular basis for several years.  Since 2004, Ohiotelnet has submitted over 17,000 
billing disputes to Windstream regarding resale services and related billing 
invoices.  Among other billing disputes, Ohiotelnet alleged that it was entitled to 
credits because Windstream had (1) failed to correctly and timely process service 
orders, (2) charged for services that did not exist, (3) charged for calls that should 
have been blocked, (4) improperly charged for third-party long-distance-carrier 
calls, (5) improperly delayed certain billing charges, and (6) failed to remit taxes 
on charges that had been credited.  Windstream processed these disputes, granting 
some and denying others.  From 2004 to 2010, Ohiotelnet disputed amounts 
totaling $114,780.  Windstream granted credits to Ohiotelnet in the amount of 
$56,942, roughly half of what Ohiotelnet had requested. 
{¶ 7} On June 19, 2009, Ohiotelnet filed a complaint against 
Windstream with the commission pursuant to R.C. 4905.26.  In its complaint, 
Ohiotelnet alleged that Windstream had overcharged for certain resale services, 
submitted inaccurate billing invoices to Ohiotelnet, and refused to issue billing 
credits on thousands of valid disputes.  According to Ohiotelnet, Windstream 
owed $76,436 in overcharges. 
{¶ 8} An evidentiary hearing was held before the commission in 
December 2010.  To prove its case that Windstream had refused to issue credits 
for valid billing disputes, Ohiotelnet relied heavily on two sets of exhibits 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
submitted in CD-ROM format: Exhibit No. 1 and Exhibits No. 2 through No. 75.  
Ohiotelnet Exhibit No. 1 is a 287-page spreadsheet that reduced each billing 
dispute to a line item.  Each line item of the spreadsheet contains the (1) billing-
dispute number, (2) billing date, (3) end-user phone number, (4) service code 
(which identifies the type of service in dispute), (5) credit amount requested, (6) 
credit amount approved, (7) tax credit, (8) date dispute was closed, and (9) 
remaining disputed amount (if any).  Ohiotelnet Exhibits No. 2 through No. 75 are 
copies of billing invoices issued by Windstream to Ohiotelnet dating from April 
2004 to June 2010. 
{¶ 9} In addition to these exhibits, Ohiotelnet presented the testimony of 
Annette Duboe, the Ohiotelnet employee who had prepared the spreadsheet to 
track billing disputes and requests for credit from Windstream.  As part of her 
testimony, Duboe described the procedure of identifying billing disputes and 
requests for credit from the record, presenting six specific examples of how she 
had calculated billing credits using these exhibits.  Duboe also referred to 
Ohiotelnet Exhibit No. 79 (the “prehearing statement”) in her testimony.  The 
prehearing statement provides an explanation of the service codes, which were 
identified only as acronyms on the spreadsheet.  The prehearing statement also 
provides a list of reasons for the billing disputes for each type of service, as well 
as the purported number of outstanding billing disputes relating to each service. 
{¶ 10} Following the filing of posthearing briefs, the commission issued 
its opinion and order on September 20, 2011.  As to the sole issue before this 
court, the commission held that Ohiotelnet had not carried its burden of proving 
that Windstream had denied valid billing claims.  The commission found that 
Windstream had successfully undermined the credibility of Ohiotelnet’s account 
of billing disputes by identifying several inaccuracies in Ohiotelnet’s exhibits.  
More broadly, the commission determined that it could not extrapolate from the 
January Term, 2013 
 
5
evidence that Ohiotelnet was entitled to the amount of billing credits requested 
from Windstream, or even to some lesser amount. 
{¶ 11} Ohiotelnet filed an application for rehearing, arguing that the 
commission had failed to conduct a complete and thorough review of the exhibits.  
Ohiotelnet claimed that Duboe had demonstrated the procedure for identifying 
valid credit requests from the record, and it faulted the commission for not 
reviewing each line-item billing dispute using the method described by Duboe.  In 
the entry denying rehearing, the commission conceded that it did not examine 
each line-item billing dispute but rejected Ohiotelnet’s contention that this 
demonstrated error.  According to the commission, undertaking a line-by-line 
review of each billing dispute without the benefit of supporting argument or 
cross-examination would be tantamount to the commission taking on the burden 
of proof that Ohiotelnet is obligated to carry. 
{¶ 12} Ohiotelnet filed the instant appeal challenging the commission’s 
orders. 
STANDARD OF REVIEW 
{¶ 13} “R.C. 4903.13 provides that a PUCO order shall be reversed, 
vacated, or modified by this court only when, upon consideration of the record, 
the court finds the order to be unlawful or unreasonable.”  Constellation 
NewEnergy, Inc. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 104 Ohio St.3d 530, 2004-Ohio-6767, 820 
N.E.2d 885, ¶ 50.  Although we have “complete and independent power of review 
as to all questions of law” in appeals from the PUCO, Ohio Edison Co. v. Pub. 
Util. Comm., 78 Ohio St.3d 466, 469, 678 N.E.2d 922 (1997), we may rely on the 
expertise of a state agency in interpreting a law when “highly specialized issues” 
are involved and when “agency expertise would, therefore, be of assistance in 
discerning the presumed intent of our General Assembly,” Consumers’ Counsel v. 
Pub. Util. Comm., 58 Ohio St.2d 108, 110, 388 N.E.2d 1370 (1979). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
{¶ 14} We will not reverse or modify a PUCO decision as to questions of 
fact when the record contains sufficient probative evidence to show that the 
commission’s decision was not manifestly against the weight of the evidence and 
was not so clearly unsupported by the record as to show misapprehension, 
mistake, or willful disregard of duty.  Monongahela Power Co. v. Pub. Util. 
Comm., 104 Ohio St.3d 571, 2004-Ohio-6896, 820 N.E.2d 921, ¶ 29.  The 
appellant bears the burden of demonstrating that the commission’s decision is 
against the manifest weight of the evidence or is clearly unsupported by the 
record.  Id. 
DISCUSSION 
{¶ 15} Ohiotelnet offers a single argument for overturning the orders—
that the commission failed to conduct a complete and thorough review of 
Ohiotelnet’s exhibits.  We find that Ohiotelnet has failed to show that the 
commission’s review of the evidence was unlawful or unreasonable. 
I. 
Ohiotelnet has failed to offer any legal authority to support its 
argument that the commission acted unlawfully 
{¶ 16} Ohiotelnet’s sole theory is that the commission willfully 
disregarded its duty by failing to conduct a complete and thorough review of 
Ohiotelnet’s evidence.  But Ohiotelnet does not support this theory with even a 
single legal authority that addresses the commission’s alleged error.  That is, 
Ohiotelnet fails to identify which statute or case law imposes such a duty on the 
commission or explain what that legal standard entails. 
{¶ 17} Ohiotelnet’s failure to develop an authority-based argument 
provides sufficient grounds to deny its claim that the commission’s decision was 
unlawful.  In re Application of Columbus S. Power Co., 129 Ohio St.3d 271, 
2011-Ohio-2638, 951 N.E.2d 751, ¶ 14 (the appellant’s failure to “cite a single 
legal authority” or “present an argument that a legal authority applies on these 
facts and was violated * * * alone is grounds to reject [a] claim”).  See also Util. 
January Term, 2013 
 
7
Serv. Partners, Inc. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 124 Ohio St.3d 284, 2009-Ohio-6764, 
921 N.E.2d 1038, ¶ 39 (“unsupported legal conclusions” do not establish error) 
and ¶ 53 (rejecting a claim when “[n]o argument [was] supplied regarding 
whether the relevant case law, applied to the facts of this case, justifies a decision 
in [appellant’s] favor”). 
II. 
The commission’s limited review of Ohiotelnet’s  
exhibits was reasonable 
{¶ 18} Ohiotelnet alleged in its complaint that it was entitled to billing 
credits because Windstream had overcharged for its services and submitted 
inaccurate billing invoices.  As the complainant at the commission, Ohiotelnet 
had the burden to present sufficient evidence to support the allegations in its 
complaint.  See Grossman v. Pub. Util. Comm., 5 Ohio St.2d 189, 214 N.E.2d 666 
(1966).  Ohiotelnet believes that it met its burden and proved the validity of the 
billing disputes solely through the submission of Exhibit Nos. 1 through 75. 
{¶ 19} Ohiotelnet is incorrect.  The record supports the commission’s 
determination that Ohiotelnet failed to carry its burden of proof. 
A. 
Ohiotelnet’s evidence 
{¶ 20} Before the commission, Ohiotelnet relied heavily on two sets of 
exhibits.  The first was the 287-page spreadsheet that contained more than 17,000 
billing disputes.  The spreadsheet reduced each dispute to a line item that 
contained categories listing the (1) billing-dispute number, (2) billing date, (3) 
end-user phone number, (4) service code, (5) credit amount requested, (6) credit 
amount approved, (7) tax credit, (8) date dispute was closed, and (9) disputed 
amount (if any).1  The second set of exhibits included thousands of copies of 
billing invoices issued by Windstream to Ohiotelnet from 2004 to 2010.  
                                                 
1.  The spreadsheet was not limited to those disputes for which Ohiotelnet was seeking billing 
credits.  Rather, it included all billing disputes, even those that had been resolved in Ohiotelnet’s 
favor before the hearing in this case. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
Ohiotelnet also relied on its prehearing statement, which contained an explanation 
of the service codes and an accompanying statement of the reasons for the credit 
requests. 
{¶ 21} In addition to this documentary evidence, Ohiotelnet offered the 
testimony of Annette Duboe, the Ohiotelnet employee who had prepared the 
spreadsheet to track billing disputes and requests for credit from Windstream.  As 
part of her testimony, Duboe described the procedure that she had used to identify 
billing disputes and calculate requests for credit using these exhibits.  According 
to Duboe, she itemized each monthly bill from Windstream and compared it to the 
orders and “trouble tickets” that Ohiotelnet had placed with Windstream Express.2  
She then compiled this information on the spreadsheet to track the status of each 
billing dispute and request for credit that Ohiotelnet had made to Windstream.  
Duboe averred that she would regularly update the spreadsheet to reflect new 
disputes and the resolution of old disputes. 
{¶ 22} Ohiotelnet maintained that Duboe’s testimony provided a roadmap 
to identify valid credits using the spreadsheet and billing invoices.  Duboe 
testified that it would be necessary to examine the spreadsheet line by line—
cross-referencing the billing invoices and the prehearing statement—to determine 
the basis and validity of each billing dispute.  Duboe provided six examples of 
how she had used the spreadsheet, billing invoices, and prehearing statement to 
identify billing credits that Windstream allegedly owed to Ohiotelnet.. 
B. 
Ohiotelnet’s evidence does not establish the 
validity of any billing dispute 
{¶ 23} Ohiotelnet expected that the commission’s hearing examiner 
would conduct a line-by-line review of each billing dispute listed in the 
                                                 
2.  Ohiotelnet used trouble tickets to track complaints from their end-user customers.  Windstream 
Express is the online program that Windstream uses to track orders and billing disputes. 
January Term, 2013 
 
9
spreadsheet, using the procedure employed by Duboe.  We find that the 
commission was justified in refusing to conduct such a review. 
{¶ 24} The critical problem for Ohiotelnet is that the validity of the billing 
disputes is not self-evident from reviewing the spreadsheet, billing invoices, and 
prehearing statement.  The first column of the spreadsheet identifies the dispute 
number, the third column lists the end user’s phone number, and the fourth 
column lists the service codes.  The spreadsheet lists the service codes as 
acronyms, but it does not define the acronyms.  An explanation of the service 
codes is contained instead in the prehearing statement.  But the prehearing 
statement also lists several possible reasons underlying the various types of 
service disputes.  For example, one of the service codes on the spreadsheet is 
“SOCRR,” which the prehearing statement identifies as an “Order Fees” service 
dispute.  The prehearing statement lists seven different reasons as a possible basis 
for this particular dispute:  (1) the service was not completed on time, (2) the 
service was not done correctly, (3) the service was not ordered, (4) the service 
was cancelled but Windstream continued to bill for it, (5) the service was double 
charged, (6) the phone number was invalid, or (7) no credit was given for having 
to switch because of a disconnect.  The prehearing statement does not, however, 
identify which of these seven reasons Ohiotelnet relied on as the basis for this 
particular billing dispute.  Likewise, the spreadsheet and billing invoices fail to 
provide the exact basis for the billing dispute.  Indeed, Duboe admitted, under 
questioning from the hearing examiner, that the nature of each billing dispute 
could not be determined from a review of these exhibits. 
{¶ 25} The failure to identify the exact basis for each billing dispute is 
fatal to Ohiotelnet’s claim.  Without any additional evidence, the commission was 
left to guess the exact basis for each billing dispute.  Without that information, it 
was impossible for the commission to determine the validity of any billing-credit 
request.  In the end, Ohiotelnet has failed to provide the type of evidence 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
 
necessary to prove the validity of its claims.  At best, Ohiotelnet’s exhibits 
establish merely the existence of billing disputes between Ohiotelnet and 
Windstream.  But even if the commission had done as Ohiotelnet asked and 
reviewed each line-item billing dispute, it would not have been able to determine 
whether Ohiotelnet was entitled to the requested billing credits. 
CONCLUSION 
{¶ 26} Ohiotelnet has the burden of demonstrating that the commission’s 
orders were unreasonable or unlawful.  AT & T Communications of Ohio, Inc. v. 
Pub. Util. Comm., 51 Ohio St.3d 150, 154, 555 N.E.2d 288 (1990).  Ohiotelnet 
has not carried that burden in this appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm the 
commission’s orders. 
Orders affirmed. 
PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., 
concur. 
____________________ 
 
Morrow, Gordon & Byrd, Ltd., and James R. Cooper, for appellant. 
 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Werner L. Margard, Devin D. 
Parram, and William L. Wright, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee. 
 
Bailey Cavalieri, L.L.C., and William A. Adams, for intervening appellee. 
________________________