[Cite as Hand & Hand MRDD Residential Servs., Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Dev. Disabilities, 2017-Ohio-9287.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

Hand & Hand MRDD Residential : 

Services, Inc., 

 : 

 Appellant-Appellant, 

 : No. 17AP-116 

v. (C.P.C. No. 16CV-00677)

 : 

Ohio Department of Developmental (REGULAR CALENDAR) 

Disabilities, : 

 Appellee-Appellee. : 

 

D E C I S I O N 

Rendered on December 28, 2017 

 

On brief: Ronald B. Noga, for appellant. Argued: 

Ronald B. Noga. 

On brief: Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Stephanie 

Deters, for appellee. Argued: Stephanie Deters. 

 

APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas 

SADLER, J. 

{¶ 1} Appellant-appellant, Hand & Hand MRDD Residential Services, Inc., 

appeals from the judgment entry of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas 

affirming an adjudication order issued by appellee-appellee, Ohio Department of 

Developmental Disabilities, to revoke appellant's provider certifications. For the 

following reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court. 

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

{¶ 2} At the time of adjudication of this matter, appellant was an agency certified 

by appellee to provide services to individuals with developmental disabilities since 
No. 17AP-116 2 

approximately 2004. Specifically, appellant was certified to provide Individual Options 

Wavier, Level One Waiver, Self-Empowered Life Funding Waiver, and Supported Living 

Provider services to individuals with developmental disabilities. Appellant provided such 

services for approximately 14 adult clients between the ages of 30 and 50 who lived at 9 

different sites. The sites were not owned by appellant but, rather, appellant's employees 

would travel to the clients' homes to provide 24-hour care and supervision. John Flemon 

is the owner and CEO of appellant. 

{¶ 3} By two letters dated January 22, 2015, appellee suspended and also 

proposed the revocation of appellant's certifications pursuant to R.C. 5123.166. As the 

basis for the proposed revocation, appellee listed the result of appellant's December 2014 

special provider compliance review which yielded 17 citations, prior provider compliance 

reviews yielding citations in 2006, 2008, and 2009, a suspension in 2010 based on the 

2009 compliance review, and appellee's failure to implement and/or maintain its 

previously submitted plans of correction following previous compliance reviews. 

{¶ 4} A hearing on the matter was held on September 29 and 30, 2015. The 

hearing examiner issued her report and recommendation on November 5, 2015. In it, the 

hearing examiner concluded that appellee demonstrated by a preponderance of the 

evidence that there is good cause to revoke appellant's provider certification, pursuant to 

R.C. 5123.166, because the evidence showed appellant "committed acts of misfeasance, 

nonfeasance, and other conduct that was, or could be, injurious to the individuals served 

by [appellant]" pursuant to R.C. 5123.166(B)(4), (6), and (9). (Hearing Examiner Report 

at 33.) The hearing examiner noted that some of the numerous violations cited as part of 

the December 2014 compliance review were of a "fairly innocuous nature," that appellee 

would not likely seek to revoke a certification on those issues alone, and that appellee's 

counsel agreed at the hearing this case is essentially about background checks, a process 

which includes checking a prospective employee's criminal record and with several 

registries, ensuring the person has certain valid, up-to-date certifications, and ensuring 

the person has at least a high school diploma or GED. (Hearing Examiner Report at 33.) 

The background checks are required "to make sure the prospective employee is a safe 

person to care for individuals with developmental disabilities." (Hearing Examiner 
No. 17AP-116 3 

Report at 34.) Regarding appellee's track record on this issue, the hearing examiner 

wrote: 

The evidence presented at the hearing showed that Hand & 

Hand was found to have failed to complete those background 

checks several times, over a period of several years. 

Compliance reviews in 2006 and 2008 found instances where 

Hand & Hand had not completed the necessary background 

checks for employees who were working with 

developmentally-disabled clients. Both times, the provider 

submitted a plan of correction and gave assurances that it had 

addressed the problems. When a 2009 compliance review 

found the provider in violation of the same regulations, the 

Department suspended the provider's certification in early 

2010. Manager Theresa Ryan testified that in response, Hand 

& Hand submitted one of the best plans of correction she had 

ever seen, thoroughly addressing how the violations had been 

corrected so that the Department could be assured that they 

would not occur again. An agent from the Department made 

a site visit and agreed that the provider had effectively 

changed its practices, so the suspension was lifted in March 

2010. Then, when the 2014 compliance review was initiated, 

the reviewers found the same problems - employees were 

once again working without having had all of the required 

background checks, and one of them had disqualifying 

criminal offenses on her record. The fact that the same 

violations continued to occur even after repeated assurances 

that the deficiencies had been corrected is the basis for the 

Department's proposal to revoke Hand & Hand's certification. 

(Hearing Examiner Report at 34.) 

{¶ 5} The hearing examiner further discussed appellant is a provider that agreed 

to comply with certain standards in exchange for Medicaid reimbursement, and, as such, 

appellee is justified in seeking to revoke the provider's certification "[w]hen those 

regulations are continually disregarded after the provider has given numerous assurances 

that it will comply." (Hearing Examiner Report at 35.) Regarding appellant's recent 

acquisition of an experienced consultant to address the deficiencies, the hearing examiner 

noted appellee "justifiably does not have confidence that the deficiencies have been 

permanently addressed so that they will not be found again." (Hearing Examiner Report 

at 35.) 
No. 17AP-116 4 

{¶ 6} The hearing examiner recognized there is no suggestions that appellant did 

anything to deliberately harm a client and that letters written on appellant's behalf attest 

to appellant's compassionate care for its clients. Nonetheless, the hearing examiner was 

persuaded background checks are a critical part of appellee's ability to protect consumers 

who have developmental disabilities which may limit their ability to advocate for 

themselves and who receive direct care from provider staff with limited supervision, and, 

therefore, citations involving the failure to conduct background checks are very serious. 

As a result, the hearing examiner recommended the revocation of appellant's 

certifications and, based on the mitigation evidence, recommended appellant be 

permitted to reapply for certification after a period of five years. 

{¶ 7} Appellant submitted the following objections to the recommendation of the 

hearing examiner: 

1. The facts do not support a decertification based on the legal 

standard for good cause utilized by the Hearing Examiner. 

2. The Hearing Examiner's finding of "good cause" to 

decertify is unsupportable when the negative impact of that 

result is balanced against the alleged deficiencies. 

(Appellant's Objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Hearing Examiner at 2, 

3.) On January 8, 2016, appellee's director issued an adjudication order adopting the 

hearing examiner's findings of fact and conclusions of law, approving the 

recommendation, and revoking appellant's certifications. Appellant filed a timely appeal 

with the court of common pleas. 

{¶ 8} On February 6, 2017, the court of common pleas issued its decision and 

entry upholding the adjudication order. In doing so, the court of common pleas noted 

appellant does not dispute any of the violations documented in the 2006, 2008, 2009, 

and 2014 compliance reviews occurred and found, based on the violations, appellee had 

good cause to revoke appellant's provider certification pursuant to R.C. 5123.166(B)(4) 

(misfeasance), R.C. 5123.166(B)(6) (nonfeasance), and R.C. 5123.166(B)(9) ("[o]ther 

conduct the director determines is or would be injurious to individuals who receive or 

would receive supported living from the person or government entity."). The court of 

common pleas determined appellant's first objection, which contended appellee had to 
No. 17AP-116 5 

prove actual harm as a result of appellant's violations under the nonfeasance and 

misfeasance section, was contrary to law based on the definition of both of those terms. 

The court of common pleas determined appellant's second objection, which concerned 

appellee violating the "Bill of Rights" codified in R.C. 5123.62, was not supported by any 

evidence and instead supported appellee's argument as to the importance of background 

checks. On considering the entire record, the court of common pleas found appellee's 

adjudication order supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence, to be in 

accordance with law, and, therefore, affirmed the order. 

{¶ 9} Appellant filed a timely appeal to this court. 

II. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR 

{¶ 10} Appellant presents three assignments of error: 

[1.] The Trial Court erred in interpreting the provisions of 

O.R.C. Section 5123.166 relied on by the Court to support 

revocation of Hand & Hand's provider status by failing to 

recognize the requirement of proof of injury or actual harm 

thereby rendering the statute unconstitutionally void for 

vagueness and a Violation of Due Process. 

[2.] The Court of Common Pleas erred as a matter of law in 

failing to find the process utilized by ODDD in issuing a 

Revocation Order in this case violated O.R.C. Section 5123.62, 

(the "bill of rights" applicable to Appellant's consumers), and 

therefore was contrary to law. 

[3.] The Court of Common Pleas erred in failing to find 

ODDD's violation of O.R.C. Section 5123.62 rendered any 

finding of "good cause" contrary to law. 

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

{¶ 11} In an administrative appeal, pursuant to R.C. 119.12, the court of common 

pleas reviews an agency's order to determine whether it is supported by reliable, 

probative, and substantial evidence and is in accordance with law. R.C. 119.12(M); Saxe v. 

Ohio Dept. of Mental Retardation & Dev. Disabilities, 10th Dist. No. 09AP-1022, 2010-

Ohio-4377, ¶ 7. Reliable, probative, and substantial evidence has been defined as follows: 

"Reliable" evidence is dependable; that is, it can be 

confidently trusted. In order to be reliable, there must be a 

reasonable probability that the evidence is true. * * * 
No. 17AP-116 6 

"Probative" evidence is evidence that tends to prove the issue 

in question; it must be relevant in determining the issue. * * * 

"Substantial" evidence is evidence with some weight; it must 

have importance and value. 

(Footnotes omitted.) Our Place, Inc. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm., 63 Ohio St.3d 570, 

571 (1992). "In applying this standard, the court must 'give due deference to the 

administrative resolution of evidentiary conflicts.' " Saxe at ¶ 7, quoting Univ. of 

Cincinnati v. Conrad, 63 Ohio St.2d 108, 111 (1980). The court of common pleas " 'will 

not substitute its judgment for the [agency]'s where there is some evidence supporting the 

[agency]'s Order.' " Inrex Home Care, LLC v. Ohio Dept. of Dev. Disabilities, 10th Dist. 

No. 16AP-814, 2016-Ohio-7986, ¶ 8, quoting Harris v. Lewis, 69 Ohio St.2d 577, 578 

(1982). 

{¶ 12} "On further appeal to this court, our standard of review is more limited." 

Saxe at ¶ 8. "Unlike the court of common pleas, a court of appeals does not determine the 

weight of the evidence." Id., citing Bd. of Edn. of Rossford Exempted Village School Dist. 

v. State Bd. of Edn., 63 Ohio St.3d 705, 707 (1992). "Our role is limited to a 

determination of whether the court of common pleas abused its discretion in finding that 

the [agency's] order was or was not supported by reliable, probative, and substantial 

evidence." Saxe at ¶ 8, citing Roy v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 80 Ohio App.3d 675, 680 (10th 

Dist.1992). The term "abuse of discretion" connotes more than an error of law or 

judgment; it implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or 

unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). However, on the 

question of whether the agency's order was in accordance with law, this court's review is 

plenary. Saxe at ¶ 8; Univ. Hosp., Univ. of Cincinnati College of Medicine v. State Emp. 

Relations Bd., 63 Ohio St.3d 339, 343 (1992). 

IV. DISCUSSION 

A. First Assignment of Error 

{¶ 13} Under the first assignment of error, appellant contends the trial court erred 

when it interpreted the applicable provisions of R.C. 5123.166 to not require "proof of 

injury or actual harm thereby rendering the statute unconstitutionally void for vagueness 
No. 17AP-116 7 

and a Violation of Due Process." (Appellant's Brief at v.) For the following reasons, we 

disagree. 

{¶ 14} In Inrex Home Care, we considered a vagueness challenge to the good cause 

language in R.C. 5123.166(B)(4) in the context of reviewing an injunction motion. There, 

we stated: 

"In enacting a statute, it is presumed that * * * [c]ompliance 

with the constitutions of the state and of the United States is 

intended." R.C. 1.47(A); see also State v. Carswell, 114 Ohio 

St.3d 210, 2007-Ohio-3723, ¶ 10, 871 N.E.2d 547. Courts 

have a duty to liberally construe statutes "to save them from 

constitutional infirmities." Desenco, Inc. v. Akron, 84 Ohio 

St.3d 535, 538, 1999-Ohio-368, 706 N.E.2d 323 (1999). "An 

enactment of the General Assembly is presumed to be 

constitutional, and before a court may declare it 

unconstitutional it must appear beyond a reasonable doubt 

that the legislation and constitutional provisions are clearly 

incompatible." State ex rel. Dickman v. Defenbacher, 164 

Ohio St. 142, 128 N.E.2d 59 (1955), paragraph one of the 

syllabus. 

* * * A statute is not void simply because it could be worded 

more precisely or with additional certainty. State ex rel. Rear 

Door Bookstore v. Tenth Dist. Court of Appeals, 63 Ohio 

St.3d 354, 588 N.E.2d 116 (1992), citing Roth v. United States, 

354 U.S. 476, 77 S.Ct. 1304, 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 (1957). The 

question is whether the law affords reasonable individuals of 

ordinary intelligence fair notice and sufficient definition and 

guidance to enable them to conform their conduct to the law. 

Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 92 S.Ct. 839, 31 

L.Ed.2d 110 (1972). 

Id. at ¶ 10-11. 

{¶ 15} R.C. 5123.166 governs appellee's authority to revoke certificates issued to 

agency providers such as appellant. R.C. 5123.166 states in pertinent part: 

(A) If good cause exists as specified in division (B) of this 

section and determined in accordance with procedures 

established in rules adopted under section 5123.1611 of the 

Revised Code, the director of developmental disabilities may 

issue an adjudication order requiring that one of the following 

actions be taken against a person or government entity 

seeking or holding a supported living certificate: 
No. 17AP-116 8 

* * * 

(2) Revocation of a supported living certificate; 

(B) The following constitute good cause for taking action 

under division (A) of this section against a person or 

government entity seeking or holding a supported living 

certificate: 

(1) The person or government entity’s failure to meet or 

continue to meet the applicable certification standards 

established in rules adopted under section 5123.1611 of the 

Revised Code; 

(2) The person or government entity violates section 5123.165 

of the Revised Code; 

(3) The person or government entity’s failure to satisfy the 

requirements of section 5123.081 or 5123.52 of the Revised 

Code; 

(4) Misfeasance; 

(5) Malfeasance; 

(6) Nonfeasance; 

(7) Confirmed abuse or neglect; 

(8) Financial irresponsibility; 

(9) Other conduct the director determines is or would be 

injurious to individuals who receive or would receive 

supported living from the person or government entity. 

{¶ 16} The adjudication order revoking appellant's certifications is based on R.C. 

5123.166(B)(4), (6), and (9), covering misfeasance, nonfeasance, and other conduct the 

director determines is or would be injurious to individuals who receive or would receive 

supported living from the person or government entity. 

{¶ 17} Appellant's first issue under this assignment of error contends R.C. 

5123.166(B)(4), (6), and (9) must be interpreted as encompassing occurrences of injury or 

actual harm or else those sections are rendered unconstitutionally void for vagueness. 
No. 17AP-116 9 

Appellant gives example definitions of misfeasance and nonfeasance that it contends 

require receipt of an injury as a requirement in the context of revocation and argues these 

more specific definitions must be adopted to provide an agency notice of what conduct is 

prohibited and thereby prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. Appellant 

does not specify how R.C. 5123.166(B)(9) is unconstitutionally vague. 

{¶ 18} First, the first time appellant raised the constitutional issues was in a reply 

brief to the court of common pleas. The court of common pleas did not address the 

constitutional arguments and contained its analysis to the two arguments corresponding 

to appellant's objections to the hearing examiner's report, which focused on whether the 

evidence here supported decertification. Appellate courts generally decline to address, for 

the first time, issues which could have been, but were not, properly raised in early 

proceedings. Leslie v. Ohio Dept. of Dev., 171 Ohio App.3d 55, 2007-Ohio-1170, ¶ 47 (10th 

Dist.); State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464, 2014-Ohio-4034, ¶ 18; Atkins v. Dir., 

Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 10th Dist. No. 08AP-182, 2008-Ohio-4109, ¶ 18-19 

(noting that waiver applies to constitutional issues and finding that it need not consider, 

for the first time, constitutional arguments that an appellant failed to properly raise to the 

trial court). 

{¶ 19} Regardless, we disagree with appellant that the three bases relied on by the 

hearing examiner specifically require "proof of injury or actual harm" based on definitions 

that appellant contends are specific to the context of this case rather than improper 

"general[ized]" definitions used by the court of common pleas. (Appellant's Brief at v, 8, 

11.) The definitions provided by appellant for these two terms are not specific to 

revocation or decertification cases but are, instead, derived from removal from office 

cases and even acknowledge that actions "harmful to the public welfare" may suffice to 

support such removals. (Appellant's Brief at 11.) 

{¶ 20} Contrary to appellant's position, a recent case addressing nonfeasance 

specifically under R.C. 5123.166(B)(6) in the context of appellee's revocation of a 

provider's certifications applied a definition similar to what the court of common pleas 

utilized in this case and did not require proof of injury or actual harm. Cty. Med, Inc. v. 

Ohio Dept. of Dev. Disabilities, 8th Dist. No. 104921, 2017-Ohio-5745, ¶ 27-32, quoting 

Teagardin v. Metal Foils, L.L.C., 11th Dist. No. 2001-L-235, 2003-Ohio-1975, ¶ 11, 
No. 17AP-116 10 

quoting Black's Law Dictionary 861 (7th Ed.2000) ("Nonfeasance is ' "the failure to act 

when a duty existed." ' "). Using this definition, the Cty. Med court found that "a 

provider's conduct may at once constitute both nonfeasance and the failure to meet 

applicable certification standards." Cty. Med at ¶ 27. As a result, the Cty. Med court held 

evidence of a provider's repeated failure to comply with appellee's certification standards, 

including failure to document whether drivers had been subjected to criminal background 

checks, supported appellee's and the trial court's findings that the provider committed 

nonfeasance. 

{¶ 21} The court of common pleas utilized a similarly general definition in 

addressing malfeasance, which describes a lawful act performed in a wrongful manner. 

Haycook v. Miller, 10th Dist. No. 74AP-485 (Mar. 18, 1975). We find, and appellant 

provides, no legal authority or compelling reason to differentiate misfeasance in this 

regard in order to impose a requirement of proof of injury or actual harm where 

nonfeasance has no such requirement. Considering all the above, we disagree with 

appellant that the court of common pleas' determination that misfeasance and 

nonfeasance under R.C. 5123.166(B)(4) and (6) do not require proof of actual harm is 

contrary to law. 

{¶ 22} Regarding R.C. 5123.166(B)(9), appellant provides no discernable argument 

or authority in support for how R.C. 5123.166(B)(9) requires "proof of injury or actual 

harm" or is unconstitutionally vague. (Appellant's Brief at v, 8.) R.C. 5123.166(B)(9) 

expressly applies to "conduct the director determines is or would be injurious to 

individuals who receive or would receive supported living from the person or government 

entity." (Emphasis added.) The plain language of R.C. 5123.166(B)(9), in referencing 

prospective injury, does not require "proof of injury or actual harm" but, instead, allows 

appellee to revoke certifications to prevent future harm to persons receiving supported 

living care. (Appellant's Brief at v, 8.) Therefore, we likewise disagree that R.C. 

5123.166(B)(9) must be interpreted as encompassing occurrences of injury or actual 

harm. 

{¶ 23} In its second issue under this assignment of error, appellant contends if we 

were to interpret injury or actual harm is "inherent" in misfeasance and nonfeasance as 
No. 17AP-116 11 

used in R.C. 5123.166, reversal is nonetheless required. (Appellant's Brief at 16.) 

Appellant presents an array of arguments in support of this contention. 

{¶ 24} Appellant first contends, in this case, the three bases relied on by the 

hearing examiner would be "eliminated" since there is no reliable, probative, or 

substantial evidence of any injury or actual harm having occurred as a result of any of the 

deficiencies found by appellee. (Appellant's Brief at 16.) We have already determined 

that R.C. 5123.166(B)(4), (6), and (9) do not require evidence of injury or actual harm. 

Therefore, this argument is moot. 

{¶ 25} Appellant also raises two contentions in regard to the hearing examiner's 

report. Appellant contends the hearing examiner's failure to state what evidence supports 

each section of R.C. 5123.166(B) she relied on, in and of itself, "renders the Court's 

conclusion that there is reliable, probative or substantial evidence to support any of the 

three statutory bases * * * an impossibility." (Appellant's Brief at 17.) Appellant also 

contends, regarding R.C. 5123.166(B)(9), the hearing examiner's statement that the 

statute reads " 'could' be injurious when the statute reads 'would' be injurious" renders 

her conclusions of law "erroneous on its face as a matter of law." (Appellant's Brief at 18.) 

However, appellant cites no legal authority for either of these arguments, which both 

undermines its burden of affirmatively demonstrating error on appeal and violates of 

App.R. 16. Miller v. Johnson & Angelo, 10th Dist. No. 01AP-1210, 2002-Ohio-3681, ¶ 2 

("The burden of affirmatively demonstrating error on appeal rests with the [appellant]."); 

see also App.R. 9 and 16(A)(7) ("The appellant shall include in its brief, under the 

headings and in the order indicated, all the following: * * * [a]n argument containing the 

contentions of the appellant with respect to each assignment of error presented for review 

and the reasons in support of the contentions, with citations to the authorities, statutes, 

and parts of the record on which appellant relies."). (Emphasis added.) Inner City 

Living, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Dev. Disabilities, 8th Dist. No. 105255, 2017-Ohio-8317, ¶ 16 

("It is not an appellate court's responsibility to find and articulate legal authority to 

support an appellant's assigned error."). We also fail to see how these particular 

arguments support reversal based on the assignment of error as stated. Huntington Natl. 

Bank v. Burda, 10th Dist. No. 08AP-658, 2009-Ohio-1752, ¶ 21, citing App.R. 12(A)(1)(b) 

(stating that "a court of appeals shall * * * [d]etermine the appeal on its merits on the 
No. 17AP-116 12 

assignments of error set forth in the briefs"); Williams v. Barrick, 10th Dist. No. 08AP133, 2008-Ohio-4592, ¶ 28 (holding that appellate courts "rule[] on assignments of error 

only, and will not address mere arguments"). 

{¶ 26} Accordingly, appellant's first assignment of error is overruled. 

B. Second Assignment of Error 

{¶ 27} Under the second assignment of error, appellant contends the court of 

common pleas erred as a matter of law in failing to find the process utilized by appellee in 

issuing a revocation order in this case violated R.C. 5123.62, the "bill of rights" applicable 

to persons with developmental disabilities. For the following reasons, we disagree. 

{¶ 28} Specifically, appellant argues that appellee's policy of not consulting with 

appellant's consumers or assessing the impact on consumers of decertification of their 

provider violates R.C. 5123.62(A), (G), (I), (Q), and (R), rendering the administrative 

action contrary to law. R.C. 5123.62 provides, in pertinent part, that the rights of persons 

with developmental disabilities include, but are not limited to, the following: 

(A) The right to be treated at all times with courtesy and 

respect and with full recognition of their dignity and 

individuality; 

* * * 

(G) The right to receive appropriate care and treatment in the 

least intrusive manner; 

* * * 

(I) The right to communicate freely with persons of their 

choice in any reasonable manner they choose; 

* * * 

(Q) The right to participate in decisions that affect their lives; 

(R) The right to select a parent or advocate to act on their 

behalf. 

{¶ 29} As a preliminary issue, appellant has not provided any argument or legal 

authority for its ability, as a provider, to assert the rights of it clients to avoid appellee's 

revocation of its own license. Appellant likewise has not provided any argument or legal 
No. 17AP-116 13 

authority for the proposition that R.C. 5123.62 necessarily requires appellee to consult 

with appellant's consumers and assess the impact of decertification in its decision to 

revoke the license of their provider. Such an absence of legal authority or argument 

violates App.R. 16(A)(7) and does not support appellant's burden in demonstrating error 

on appeal. Miller; Inner City Living. 

{¶ 30} Furthermore, the plain language of the statutes at issue does not support 

appellant's argument. The process to revoke certification is governed by R.C. 5123.166, 

which provides that appellee may issue an adjudication order requiring revocation of 

certification if good cause exists, as specified in division (B) of that section, and the order 

is determined in accordance with procedures established in rules adopted under 

applicable statutes. R.C. 5123.166(A). Contrary to appellant's contention, no such 

requirement proposed by appellant is found in R.C. 5123.166. 

{¶ 31} Finally, the court of common pleas looked at the record and concluded no 

record evidence exists that appellee violated R.C. 5123.62(A), (G), (I), (Q), and (R) while 

the order supported the issue of safe, compliant living environments as set forth in the bill 

of rights under R.C. 5123.62(B). We find the common pleas court did not abuse its 

discretion in this regard. Moreover, considering all the above, the court of common pleas 

did not err as a matter of law, and appellant's argument lacks merit. 

{¶ 32} Accordingly, appellant's second assignment of error is overruled. 

C. Third Assignment of Error 

{¶ 33} Under the third assignment of error, appellant contends the court of 

common pleas erred in failing to find appellee's violation of R.C. 5123.62 rendered any 

finding of "good cause" contrary to law. (Appellant's Brief at 26.) Specifically, appellant 

takes issue with appellee's alleged failure to "balance the negative impact of that result 

against the alleged deficiencies." (Appellant's Brief at 26.) 

{¶ 34} Appellant contends a "balancing test" is required under appellee's "good 

cause" determination in R.C 5123.166(A). (Appellant's Brief at 29, 30.) According to 

appellant, this test requires appellee to weigh facts before arriving at a sanction and 

specifically requires appellee to consider the positive actions taken by appellant, the 

negative impact of decertification on appellant's consumers, and residents' wishes against 

actual deficiencies found. According to appellant, had a proper weighing been conducted, 
No. 17AP-116 14 

"one cannot reach a conclusion as a matter of law that there is 'good cause' " for 

decertification. (Appellant's Brief at 29.) 

{¶ 35} Appellant has not provided any legal authority to support a requirement for 

such a balancing test, and we decline to find such a test exists in the first instance. As 

stated in a recent revocation case, "[i]t is not an appellate court's responsibility to find and 

articulate legal authority to support an appellant's assigned error." Inner City Living at 

¶ 16. Furthermore, even if such a test exists or should exist, the record of this case 

supports good cause to decertify appellant. As detailed in the report of the hearing 

examiner and the decision of the court of common pleas, appellant repeatedly failed to 

properly conduct and document required background checks despite appellee's prior 

opportunities to correct these deficiencies. Appellee attested to the seriousness of 

background checks within the special context of providers working with individuals with 

developmental disabilities. The hearing examiner acknowledged appellant's positive 

contributions and used those in mitigation to recommend permitting appellant to reapply 

in five years. On this record, the trial court clearly did not abuse its discretion in making 

the decision that the administrative decision was based on reliable, substantive, and 

probative evidence and is accordance with law. Appellant's argument lacks merit. 

{¶ 36} Accordingly, appellant's third assignment of error is overruled. 

V. CONCLUSION 

{¶ 37} Having overruled appellant's three assignments of error, we affirm the 

judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. 

Judgment affirmed.

BROWN and LUPER SCHUSTER, JJ., concur. 

____________________