[Cite as Scali v. CSA HS UHHS Canton, Inc., 2012-Ohio-577.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

STARK COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

LAURA SCALI 

 Plaintiff-Appellant 

-vsCSA HS UHHS CANTON, INC., ET 

AL 

 Defendant-Appellee 

JUDGES: 

: Hon. Patricia Delaney, P.J. 

: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J. 

: Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. 

: 

: 

: Case No. 2011-CA-00165 

: 

: 

: O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Administrative appeal from the Stark 

County Court of Common Pleas, Case 

No.2010CV03609 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: February 13, 2012 

APPEARANCES: 

For - Appellee - CSA HS UHHS Canton For – Appellant Laura Scali 

TZANGAS, PLAKAS, MANNOS & RAIES BRENT ENGLISH 

DAVID DINGWELL M.K. Ferguson Plaza 

AMANDA M. PAAR CONROY Ste 470 

220 Market Avenue South, 8th Fl. 1500 West Third Street 

Canton, OH 44702 Cleveland, OH 44113-1422 

For - Director – ODJ&FS 

SUSAN SHEFFIELD 

Assistant Attorney General 

20 West Federal Street, 3rd Floor 

Youngstown, OH 44503 
[Cite as Scali v. CSA HS UHHS Canton, Inc., 2012-Ohio-577.]

Gwin, P.J. 

{1} Appellant Laura A. Scali appeals a judgment of the Court of Common 

Pleas of Stark County, Ohio, which affirmed the decision of the Ohio Unemployment 

Compensation Review Commission’s denying her unemployment compensation 

benefits. Appellees are CSA HS UHHS Canton, Inc. (hereinafter “Mercy”), and the 

Director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services. Appellant assigns a single 

error: 

{2} “THE REVIEW COMMISSION’S DECISION THAT SCALI WAS 

DISCHAGED FOR JUST CAUSE WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE 

EVIDENCE AND WAS UNREASONABLE.” 

{3} The hearing officer who reviewed appellant’s claim found she had been 

employed by Mercy from October 20, 2008 until she was discharged on December 11, 

2009. She was employed as a dental care assistant. The hearing officer found Mercy 

discharged appellant for unsatisfactory performance after she received several formal 

warnings for her performance in customer service. The hearing officer found appellant 

contended that the patients who complained were just difficult and she was following 

office policy. The hearing officer found appellant was hired to provide customer service 

and after receiving warnings and offers of training, she continued to receive complaints 

from customers. The hearing officer found based upon the evidence, appellant was 

discharged for just cause in connection for her work. 

{4} The Unemployment Compensation Review Commission confirmed the 

hearing officer’s findings, finding it had reviewed the entire record and concluded 

appellant’s claim for unemployment compensation should be disallowed. 
Stark County, Case No. 2011-CA-00165 3 

{5} Appellant appealed the matter to the Court of Common Pleas pursuant to 

R.C. 4141.282. The trial court recited the factual background, adding more detail than 

the hearing officer had included, and affirmed the administrative decision. From that 

judgment, this appeal ensues. 

{6} Our standard of review in unemployment compensation cases is limited. 

An appellate court may reverse a board's decision only if the decision is unlawful, 

unreasonable, or against the manifest weight of the evidence. See, Tzangas, Plakas & 

Mannos v. Administrator, Ohio Bureau of Employment Services, 73 Ohio St.3d 694, 

696, 1995–Ohio–206, 653 N.E.2d 1207, citing Irvine v. Unemployment Compensation 

Board of Review, 19 Ohio St.3d 15, 17–18, 482 N.E.2d 587 (1985). An appellate court 

may not make factual findings or determine the credibility of the witnesses, but rather, is 

required to make a determination as to whether the board's decision is supported by 

evidence on the record. Id. The hearing officer, as the fact finder, is in the best position 

to judge the credibility of the witnesses. Shaffer–Goggin v. Unemployment 

Compensation Review Commission, Richland App. No. 03–CA–2, 2003–Ohio–6907, 

citing Hall v. American Brake Shoe Co., 13 Ohio St.2d 11, 233 N.E.2d 582 (1968); 

Brown–Brockmeyer Co. v. Roach , 148 Ohio St. 511, 76 N.E.2d 79 (1947). 

{7} Mercy produced documentation regarding four violations of its disciplinary 

policy which occurred in less than one year. The first was on June 5, 2009, when Mercy 

gave appellant a verbal warning for making a personal phone call in a patient area 

without notifying her department manager. 

{8} The second warning indicated two patients had complained about the 

service they received on the phone with appellant, specifically, that she was rude and 
Stark County, Case No. 2011-CA-00165 4 

unprofessional and was unable to help them with the information they were trying to get. 

In response, appellant wrote she was sorry that two patients felt she was unable to help 

them because she tried to listen to every patient and address their needs. She stated 

that although she had attempted to help the two patients, she could not give them the 

outcome they wanted at that particular time, but she would try to be more aware of her 

reactions. 

{9} The next warning indicated Mercy had received a letter from a current 

patient regarding the way she alleged appellant spoke to her and treated her over the 

phone. Specifically, the patient said she was rude and not at all professional. Mercy 

attached the letter itself from the patient to the warning. The letter recites that writer 

had called the dental clinic and was told she could not schedule treatment until she set 

up a treatment plan, met with a financial counselor, and had dental x-rays, for which she 

would be billed. The writer felt appellant was condescending about the writer’s 

intelligence. The letter writer expressed the opinion the person who scheduled 

appointments should not make decisions about any need for updated treatment plans or 

a patient’s ability to pay. 

{10} The writer of the letter also complained appellant told her the cost was only 

$37.00, which was she felt was disrespectful and insensitive to the patient’s financial 

situation. The writer said although most of the conversation was professional, appellant 

became sarcastic at one point. Appellant responded she did not remember having the 

conversation and she would be surprised if she actually said those things. She 

asserted she tried to be very respectful and mindful of the patient’s needs and feelings. 
Stark County, Case No. 2011-CA-00165 5 

{11} The final complaint which triggered the termination of appellant’s 

employment was on December 11, 2009, wherein the supervisor had received a 

complaint call, followed up by a written complaint from a patient, wherein he indicated 

he was very disappointed by the treatment he had received from appellant when making 

a dental appointment. He felt “brushed off” when he asked several questions that were 

important to him, and was made to feel stupid by the employee’s responses to his 

questions. Appellant responded that she did not brush off the patient but attended to all 

of his inquires except those involving insurance. Everyone else was in a staff meeting 

and appellant was unable to answer insurance questions, so she advised him to contact 

his insurance company directly. 

{12} Appellant argues the decision was against the manifest weight of the 

evidence and was unreasonable. She asserts the evidence presented to the hearing 

officer was hearsay, which, while permissible in an administrative hearing, should not 

carry the same weight as testimony of live witnesses. 

{13} The Director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services argues, 

among other things, that appellant had failed to object to the introduction of hearsay 

evidence, and has thus waived the issue. We do not agree. There is a distinction to be 

drawn between an objection to the admission of evidence and an assertion the 

evidence is insufficient to support the decision. In her brief appellant does not argue 

hearsay should not be admitted in an administrative hearing, but argues there was no 

corroborating evidence, and thus, the evidence was not sufficient to support the hearing 

officer’s decision. 
Stark County, Case No. 2011-CA-00165 6 

{14} Appellant also argues the record does not show Mercy adhered to its 

written policy of progressive discipline, and the record does not show Mercy 

investigated the complaints before taking disciplinary action against her. Appellant 

argues the record shows Mercy simply accepted the patients’ complaints as true in spite 

of appellant’s explanation and denials. 

{15} This court must affirm the trial court’s decision if we find it is supported by 

some evidence in the record, and we find the record does contain sufficient, competent 

and credible evidence from which the trial court could affirm the administrative decision. 

This court is not permitted to substitute its judgment for that of the finder of fact even if 

our judgment in the matter would have been different. 

{16} The assignment of error is overruled. 

{17} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of 

Stark County, Ohio, is affirmed. 

By Gwin, J., 

Delaney, P.J., and 

Hoffman, J., concur 

 

 _________________________________ 

 HON. W. SCOTT GWIN 

 _________________________________ 

 HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY 

 _________________________________ 

 HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN 

WSG:clw 0113 
[Cite as Scali v. CSA HS UHHS Canton, Inc., 2012-Ohio-577.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR STARK COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

LAURA SCALI : 

 : 

 Plaintiff-Appellant : 

 : 

 : 

-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY 

 : 

CSA HS UHHS CANTON, INC., ET AL : 

 : 

 : 

 Defendant-Appellee : CASE NO. 2011-CA-00165 

 For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the 

judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Stark County, Ohio, is affirmed. Costs to 

appellant. 

 _________________________________ 

 HON. W. SCOTT GWIN 

 _________________________________ 

 HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY 

 _________________________________ 

 HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN