Court Opinion

ID: 9966336
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-06 18:09:22.506416+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:46.950020
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Requa v. Conneaut City Aud., 2024-Ohio-1738.]

                 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                          ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                              ASHTABULA COUNTY

GENE REQUA,                                              CASE NO. 2023-A-0067

                 Appellant,
                                                         Administrative Appeal from the
        - vs -                                           Court of Common Pleas

CITY AUDITOR,
CITY OF CONNEAUT, et al.,                                Trial Court No. 2023 CV 00004

                 Appellees.

                                             OPINION

                                       Decided: May 6, 2024
                                        Judgment: Affirmed

Robert S. Wynn, 7 Lawyers Row, P.O. Box 121, Jefferson, OH 44047 (For Appellant).

John D. Lewis, Law Directory, City of Conneaut, 294 Main Street, Conneaut, OH 44030
(For Appellee City Auditor, City of Conneaut).

Dave Yost, Ohio Attorney General, Staff Office Tower, 30 East Broad Street, 16th Floor,
Columbus, OH 43215, and Patrick MacQueeney, Assistant Attorney General, 615 West
Superior Avenue, 11th Floor, Cleveland, OH 44113 (For Appellee Director, Ohio
Department of Job and Family Services).

JOHN J. EKLUND, J.

        {¶1}     Appellant, Gene Requa, appeals the Ashtabula County Court of Common

Pleas’ affirming the Unemployment Compensation Review Commission’s (“UCRC”)

disallowing his request for review. For the following reasons, we affirm the common pleas

court’s judgment.
       {¶2}   Between February 2019 and August 2022, the City of Conneaut (“the City”)

employed Appellant as a planning and zoning inspector.         In August 2022, the City

terminated Appellant’s employment. He applied for, and initially received, unemployment

compensation. The City appealed the initial determination to the Department of Job and

Family Services (“JFS”).    JFS affirmed its initial determination finding that the City

terminated Appellant without just cause.

       {¶3}   On October 14, 2022, the City appealed the redetermination, and the

director transferred the case to the UCRC. The UCRC scheduled a telephone hearing to

be held on November 2, 2022. On October 19, 2022, the UCRC sent hearing notices to

all parties, including Appellant. The notices stated that the parties were required to call

one of three toll-free numbers fifteen minutes before the hearing to make an appearance.

Appellant did not appear at the hearing. The hearing officer attempted to call Appellant

three times to no avail. On November 3, 2022, the UCRC reversed JFS’ redetermination

and found that Appellant did not have a successful claim for unemployment compensation

because the City had terminated him for just cause.

       {¶4}   On November 17, 2022, Appellant filed a request for review of the UCRC’s

November 3 decision. In his request, among other reasons, Appellant asserted that he

had good cause for failing to appear at the November 2, 2022 hearing and requested that

the hearing be rescheduled. His stated reason for not appearing was that he did not

receive the hearing officer’s phone calls because his phone carrier treated the calls as

“spam.”

       {¶5}   On December 7, 2022, the UCRC issued a decision disallowing Appellant’s

request for review. The December 7 decision made no reference to Appellant’s attempt

                                            2

Case No. 2023-A-0067
at showing good cause for failing to appear at the November 2 hearing and did not

address the issue.

        {¶6}   On January 6, 2023, Appellant filed an administrative appeal of the UCRC’s

December 7 decision to the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas. On September

28, 2023, the common pleas court affirmed the UCRC’s decision disallowing Appellant’s

request for review.    The common pleas court’s September 28 judgment found that

Appellant did not demonstrate good cause for his failing to appear at the November 2

hearing. The court found that Appellant received proper written notice of the hearing, that

he did not call-in as required, and that he did not return or accept the hearing officer’s

calls to appear at the hearing.

        {¶7}   Appellant timely appeals the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas’

September 28, 2023 judgment entry affirming the UCRC’s decision disallowing

Appellant’s request for review. He raises one assignment of error. It states, in pertinent

part:

        {¶8}   “The trial court erred to the substantial prejudice of Appellant when it

affirmed the decision of the UCRC disallowing Appellant’s request for review * * *.”

        {¶9}   A trial court and an appellate court employ the same, well-established

standard of review in unemployment compensation appeals: “[A] reviewing court may

reverse the board's determination only if it is unlawful, unreasonable, or against the

manifest weight of the evidence.” Tzangas, Plakas & Mannos v. Ohio Bur. of Emp. Servs.,

73 Ohio St.3d 694, 697, 653 N.E.2d 1207 (1995); R.C. 4141 .282(H). When a reviewing

court (whether a trial or appellate court) applies this standard, it may not make factual

findings or determine witness credibility. Irvine v. State Unemployment Comp. Bd. of

                                            3

Case No. 2023-A-0067
Rev., 19 Ohio St.3d 15, 18, 482 N.E.2d 587 (1985). Factual questions remain solely

within the UCRC’s province. Tzangas at 696. Thus, a reviewing court may not reverse

the UCRC’s decision simply because “reasonable minds might reach different

conclusions.”     Irvine at 18.      The focus of an appellate court when reviewing an

unemployment compensation appeal is upon the commission's, not the trial court's,

decision. Moore v. Comparison Market, Inc., 9th Dist. Summit No. 23255, 2006-Ohio-

6382, ¶ 8.

       {¶10} Within his assignment of error, Appellant argues two reasons why the trial

court erred in affirming the UCRC’s decision. First, he contends that the UCRC did not

consider his reasons for failing to appear at the November 2, 2022 hearing because it did

not acknowledge or rule on the issue in its December 7, 2022 decision.

       {¶11} Second, Appellant asserts that the trial court erred because the UCRC did

not provide him with written notice of its finding that he did not demonstrate good cause

for his nonappearance at the hearing. Appellant asks this court to reverse the trial court’s

decision and remand his claim for a rescheduled evidentiary hearing.

       {¶12} We first find that Appellant did not timely show cause for his failing to appear

at the November 2 hearing.

       {¶13} R.C. 4141.281(D)(5) provides: “The commission shall vacate the decision

upon a showing that written notice of the hearing was not sent to the appellee's last known

address, or good cause for the appellee's failure to appear is shown to the commission

within fourteen days after the hearing date.”1

1. The Appellant in this appeal, Gene Requa, was the appellee at the November 2 hearing.
                                                  4

Case No. 2023-A-0067
       {¶14} Appellant did not show any cause for his failing to appear at the November

2 hearing within fourteen days after the hearing. Appellant filed his request for review on

November 17, 2022, fifteen days after the hearing date. He only attempted to show cause

within his request for review. Any showing of cause for not appearing at the November 2

hearing would have to have been shown on or before November 16, 2022. He did not.

       {¶15} A request for review is also not the appropriate mechanism for showing

good cause for failing to appear at a hearing.

       {¶16} Pursuant to Ohio Adm.Code 4146-25-01, “A request for review to the review

commission may be taken by any interested party by filing a request for review from a

decision by a hearing officer. Any written notice stating that the interested party appeals

from or desires a review of the decision of the hearing officer on a hearing officer level

appeal shall constitute a request for review to the review commission.”

       {¶17} Ohio Adm.Code 4146-25-01 makes it clear that the purpose of a request for

review is to review a decision made by the hearing officer. The hearing officer did not

decide whether or not Appellant had shown good cause for his failure to appear at the

hearing. The request for review was therefore not the proper mechanism for showing

good cause. Procedurally, Appellant would have had to first show cause, receive a

decision by the hearing officer, and then file his request to review that decision. Appellant

did not follow that procedure. It is immaterial that the UCRC did not address Appellant’s

reasons for not appearing at the hearing because his showing of cause was untimely and

not properly shown to the UCRC.

       {¶18} It is also important to note that Appellant was not harmed by the UCRC’s

failure to address his argument that he did not appear at the hearing for good cause. The

                                             5

Case No. 2023-A-0067
trial court, on an administrative appeal from the UCRC’s decision, considered Appellant’s

arguments and found that he did not show good cause for not appearing at the November

2 hearing.

       {¶19} We     next   consider    Appellant’s   assertion    that   pursuant   to   R.C.

4141.281(D)(5), the UCRC was required to provide him with written notice of its finding

that he did not show good cause for his nonappearance at the hearing.

       {¶20} We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo. Ceccarelli v. Levin,

127 Ohio St.3d 231, 2010-Ohio-5681, 938 N.E.2d 342, ¶ 8.

       {¶21} The subdivision Appellant cites to support his argument only applies to the

appealing party. It provides: “If the commission finds that the appealing party's reason

for failing to appear does not constitute good cause for failing to appear, the commission

shall send written notice of that finding.” R.C. 4141.281(D)(5)

       {¶22} However, at the November 2, 2022 hearing, Appellant was the appellee.

Subdivision (D)(6) provides the procedure for an appellee’s nonappearance. It does not

require the commission to send written notice of a finding that a party's reason for failing

to appear does not constitute good cause. That requirement only applies to the appealing

party, not the appellee.

       {¶23} We will not apply subdivision (D)(5)’s requirement to a different subdivision

where it was omitted. The General Assembly's “use of particular language to modify one

part of a statute but not another part demonstrates that [it] knows how to make that

modification and has chosen not to make that modification in the latter part of the statute.”

Hulsmeyer v. Hospice of Southwest Ohio, Inc., 142 Ohio St.3d 236, 2014-Ohio-5511, 29

N.E.3d 903, ¶ 26. Upon a de novo review, the UCRC was not required to provide

                                             6

Case No. 2023-A-0067
Appellant with written notice of its finding that he did not show good cause for his not

appearing at the hearing.

      {¶24} The judgment of the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

MARY JANE TRAPP, J.,

MATT LYNCH, J.,

concur.

                                           7

Case No. 2023-A-0067