No. Q^.3-1644 and
No. 2013-1766
(Consolidated)
^^i^ ^f j..
166
In the Supreme Court of i
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
CASE No. C 120822
^; r'. cj s !i ?;!;;
i;'
%; < ;; :.£.. s14
PATRICIA HULSMEYER,
I %' ,
Ap^aellee^'^'ro.rs-^1ppelle^rrt,
,.;^„::.
, :.i ; ;^-.,
;;;;;,..,. ,.;
,,, •.i%,
,,T
:!,
. =s
..,.i.
'
; ; , :;
V.
HOSPICE OF SOUTHWEST OHIO, INC., et al.a
Appellants,d''Cross-Appellees,
JOINT BRIEF OF APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING, INC.,
HOSPICE OF SOUTHWEST OHIO, INC., AND JOSEPH KILLIAN
Robert A. Klingler
Brian 1.Butler
ROBERT A. KLINGLER Co., L.P.A.
525 Vine Street, Suite 2320
Cincinnati, OH 45202^3133
Tel: (513) 66549500
Fax: (513) 621-3240
El^
b`^jgLej1a€,v.corn
At-torrae,y^'€^r Appel1eelCross6Ap,^^ll^^ ^
Patricia Huismeyer
Susan M. Audey (0062818)
(Counsel of Record)
Victoria L. Vance (0013105)
TUCKER ELLIS LLP
950 Maiig Avenue, Suite 1100
Cleveland, OH 44113-7213
Tel: (216) 592^5000
Fax; (216) 592-5009
A ttorneysfor AppellantICrossnAppellee
B^^^kd^^eSenaor L iving, Inc.
Michael W. Hawkins (0012707)
(CoLansel of Record)
Faith C. Whittaker (0082486)
DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
255 East Fifth Street, Suite 1900
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Tel: (513) 977-8200
Fax: (513) 97^^^141
mi.chaQl.ha^^^^sCa)dinsragLt.om
faath.whittaker@din5MQLe.com
Attorneys for Appe1lantsICrossnAppeflees
Hospice ofS^^^hwest Ohio, Irac., andJoseph
Kiltaan
TABLE OF CON EN"I^^
rug
TABLE OF AIITI^ORI'I'IES ........................
iii
..e..e..ee.:,.ee.,e,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,a..a.a....,......,...,.,..,.,,.,,ee.:.:e..,,.,,.,,.e...... i^^
1. IN'FRODUC"I'ION ........................e,.,,..e..e.,.......... ,.,,,..,..,..,,.,,..,..,...,........ .....,..... ,.,..,...... e,.e,.e,,.,..,...,..,......,1
II. SI°A`I"EMENT OF FAC`I'S...... ,.,e ............. ..................a...,..,..,..............................,..,............................... 4
A. Hospice employs Hul^^eyer as a registered nurse to provide
hospice services to residents of Brookdal^ Senior I.SIving ...... ,.e,.e..... .a ..................... 4
B. Hospice terminates Iluilsmeyer°s employment; I-Iulsrraeyer sues ......................... 4
C. Hospice and Brookdale ^ach file motions to dismiss, in part, for
failure to state a claim for retaliation under R.C. 3721.24; the trial
court grarits the motions on that issue ........ ..........a..,......,.,,.o.,..,.,..,..,,,.e..,e.,e..,,..,..,...,.., 4
D. The First District reverses, in parx, and affirms, in part...... ....,e..e,.e...,..,..a ...... ........ 5
E. Hospice and Brookdale jointly seek further review by the Supreme
Court of Ohio; Huismeyer cross-appeals..,..,..a ...................................e.......,..,,.,..a,..,..,. 6
III. ARGUMENT ..a ................e.,e..e,.e...,..,.........,..,..,...,...,..a..,..,..,......,...,.................,...e..e,.e,.e,..,..,..a,..,......,..,.. 7
A. R.C, 3721.24 and 3721.22 were enacted together as part of a
comprehensive stattitory framework for reporting suspected
resident abuse and neg1ect.......... .....................................a...,.....,.......................,.e,..,...a.,..,, 7
B. R.C. 3721.24 is silent as to 'wI€om a report is to be made, which
underscores that it is subject to more than one interpretation ....,....,.e ......... .... 10
C. As related sections enacted together, R.C. 3721.24 and 3721.22
should be read together in parz materza . ...........................a..a,......,.............,..,...........13
D. Construing related statutes together in pari materia does not
require a threshold finding of ambiguity ............ .............................. ...................... ...e, 16
E. The in paral materia doctrine is well-established in other courts as
well and likewise support. its use here ......... ,.e,.e ..................................a..,...................,22
F. Strong public policy interests support reading R.C. 3721.24 and
3721.22 togetYierta^ eff^^^th^ ^eneralAssemblys Intent .....................................24
IV. CONCLUSION ...... ......................e,..,..,.,e.,,...,..e............ ,........................ ,........... ____ .,,a,,,,.............. .,,,.,..27
F-au
PROOF OF SERVICE .................. .......... .................. ......... .................... ............ .................... ____ ...................... 28
ABE^ND[X
^,^^x9
Page
...-,^--x--
Joant Notice of Certified Conflict, No. 2013-1644 (£^ct.18x 2013) ......................................................1
Joint Notice of Appeal, No. 2013-1766 (Nov. 12, 2013) ....................... ____ ......... ............................ 37
Notice of Cross9A^^ea1, No. 2013,1766 (Nov. 20, 2013) ............. ....................................................... 41.
judgment Entry, Court of Appeals for the First Appellate District
(Sept. 25, 2013) ....................................................................................................................................4A
Opinion, Court of Appeals for the First Appellate District (Sept. 25, 2013) ............... ................. 45
Entr ➢ 1^amgltc^^ County Court of Common Pleas (July 23, 2012) ........................... ........ ................ 61
R. C. 1.42 ............................................................................................................................................................. 68
R.C. 1.49 .................................................................................................................................................................69
R.C. 3721,17 .......................................................................................................................................................70
R.C. 3721.21 .........................................................................................................................................................7A
R.C. 3721,22 ........................................................................................................................................................ 78
R.C. 3721,23 ........................................................................................................................................................8q
R.C. 3721.24 .........................................................................................................................................................83
R.C. 3721,25 .........................................................................................................................................................85
R.C. 3721.26.......................................................................................................................................................87
Am,Sub.H,B,No. 822 .......................................................................................................................................88
ii
TABLE OF AUT^ORITI^^
F-aw
Cases
Abrams v. Am. Computer T^ch.^
168 Ohio App.3d 362, 2006-OhioR4032 (1.st Dist.)
...............................
.... ..........................,.. :s
Arsham-Brenner v. Grande Point Health Care C^^mun€tyx
8th Dist. No. 74835, 2000 WL 968790 ................ ............. ................................................. passim
Ba rtchy v. State Bd of I-,dn.„
120 Ohio St.3d 205, 2008aOhio-4826 ......................... .....................................o...,...........,..,........... 7
Bd. of,^^^k Commrs. of Cleveland Metro. Park Dist. v. W,^manr
116 Ohi^ St. 441 (1927).o .................................................................................................................5 3
Blair v. Bd; of Trustees ofSugaa^^^^^k Twp.,
132 Ohio St.3d 151, 2012-Ohio-2165 .........................................................................................17
Carnes v. Kemp,
104 Ohio St.3d 629, 20049Ohioa7107 ...........................................................................................13
Gheata Escape Co., Inc. v. Haddox, .Id,L.C➢
120 Ohio St.3d 493, 2008m0h.io-6323 ..........................................................................................17
{'ontr^eras v. Ferro Corp.,
73 Ohio St.3d 244 (1995) .......... ...... .......................................................... ..................................... ^6
Courtney v. State Dept ofHealth ofWe.st Virginia,
388 S.E.2d 491 (W.Va.1989) ...........................................................................................................23
Davis v. Marriott Internatt f Inc.,
No. Q4-4156D ^^^5 Fed.App. 0812N, 2005 Wia 2445945
(6th Cir. Oct. 4, 200S) ............................................................... ....................................... ...... 5 ➢ 15, 16
Dolan v. St. Mary"s Mem. fIomef
I^^ Ohio App.3d 441, 2003LLOhio-3383 (Ist Dist.) ......................... 1Sx 16
Donaghue v. Bunkley,
25 So.2d 61 (Ala.1946) ....................................... ........... ............................................... ............. 23y^4
Emerson v. Seville Elevator Co.,
38 Ohio App.3d S5 (9th Dist.1987) ...............................................................................................13
Erlenbaugh v. United States,
409 U.S. 239 (1972).............................................................................................................................22
iii
^^
Grove v. Fresh Mark, Ine.,
156 Ohio App.3d 620, 2004-Ohion1728 (7th Dist) ............................... .............26
Hughes v. Registrar, Ohio Bur: of Motor Vehicles,
79 Ohio St.3d 305 (1997) .................................................................................................................21
Kam v. Noh,
770 P.2d 414 (Haw.1989) ........................................................................................................ 23,24
Krueger v:Krueger,
11.1 Ohio St. 369 (1924) ....................................................................................................................18
Kulch v. StructuralFa.^ersy .^nc.,
78 Ohio St.3d 134 (1997) ..................................................................................................................26
Lawrence v. Youngstown,
133 Ohio St.3d 174, ^012-Ohioa4247 ...........................................................................................19
Patton v. United States,
281 U.S. 276 (1930) ................ .......................................................................... ............................ ..... ^2
Peoples Bridge Co. of Harrisburg v. Shroyer,
50 A.2d 499 (Pa.1947) ...............o.....,...... ....................................................................... ................... 24
Pratte v. Stewart,
12S Ohio St3d 473, 2010-Ohia-1860 ............ ........ ...... .............................................................. 1:^
Sheet Metal Workers'In tern azl Assn. Loc. Union No. 33 v. Gene's Refrig, Heating & Air
Condataoning9 Inc.,
122 Ohio St.3d 248, 200^^Ohio-2747 ......................................... .......... ....................... 10,11, 20
State ex ^el. Am. Subcontractors Assn., Inc. v. Ohio State Univ.,
129 Ohio St.3d 111, 2011LLOhio-2881 ..........................................................................................19
State ex rel. C^rna v. Teays Valley Loc. Sch. Dist Bd of Edn.,
131 Ohio St3d 478t 2n1^^Ohic^-1484 ..........................................................................................12
State ex ret Citizens for Qven, Responsive & Accountable Cyovt; v. Register,
116 Ohio St:^^ 88, 2007yOhgo45542 ............................................................................................2q
State ex reL Colvin v. Brunner,
120 Ohio St^d 110, 2008-Ohio-5041 .................................................................................11., 20
State ex reL Craw,^'^ard v, Indus. Comm. of Ohio,
110 Ohio St. 271 (1924) ............................................................................................................14, 18
1V
pue-
State ex reL Herman v. Klopfleisch,
72 Ohio St.3d 581 (1995) .. .............. ................ ......... ...........................o...............................6,1.Es 17
S^^^eex^^L Lucas Ct Republican Party Executive Cors^mt. v. Brunner,
125 Ohio St.3d 427, 2010-Ohiow1873 .o .................................................................................1^^^0
State ex re1. O",^^^l v. ^rijfxth,
136 Ohio St. 526 (1940) ....................................... ...... ........................................o....................,13,18
State ex ^^l. Shisler v. Ohio Public Employees Retirement Sys.,
122 Ohio St.3d 148, 20099Ohio-2522 ........................................... ................................. 20y 21
State ^^ reL Ta.^payea^sfor Westerville Schools v. Franklin Cty. Bd of Elections,
133 Ohio St.3d 153,, 2012-Ohiow4267 ..........................................................................................1.9
State Farm M€^^ Auto. Iris. Co. v. Webb,
54 Ohio St.3d 61 (1990) ....................................................................................................................17
State v. Buehler,
113 Ohio St.3d 114a 2 007°Ohio-1.246 ................................................... ............................... 1.8,19
State v. Dumler,
559 P.2d 798 (Kan.1977) ..... ......................................................................... ................................... ^^
State v. Knapp,
843 S.W.2d 345 (Mo.1992) o . ..................................................................................................... 23, 24
State v. Robinson,
124 Ohio St.3d 76, 2009-Ohao-593 7 .............................................................................................17
SuezCo. v. Young,
118 Ohio App. 415 (6th Dist.1963) .......... ...................................................o.................,.....,........ ,20
Sugarcreek nvpo v. ^^^^erville,
1.33 Ohio St.3d 467, ^012rtOh^^^4649.........................................................a....... ................... ..... 19
United States v. Stewart,
311 M. 60 (1940) ,..o..o..o ................................................................... .22
Vane v. Newcombe,
132 U.S. 220 (1889) o......o..o..o .............................................................................................................^2
Wachendorfv. Shaver,
149 Ohio St. 231 (1948) ......................o..o..o..o....................................... ...,.................................... 7, 12
v
EM
Wells v. .^ uper•v€sor^.^ f
102 U.S. 625 (1880) ...........................................................................................................................22
Wilson v. Kasich,
134 Ohio St.3d 221, ^012-Ohfow5367..........................................................................................12
WyorningSta^^e Treasurer v. Casper,
Sa1 P.2d 687 (Wyo.1976) ................................................................................................................23
Statutes
R.C. 1.42 ................................................................................................................................................................. 7
R.C. 1„49........... ......... ....... .............................. ........... .............. .................................... .................o,..,..,.......17, 21.
R. C. 3721.17 ........................................................................................................................................................2 5
R.C. 3721.17(C) .................. ....................o,,..,.,,.,.................,.....,.....,........ ......... .,................. ...,..,......,.....,.,,.,....... 25
R.C. 3721.21(1,) ...................................................................................................................................................... 4
R.C. 3721.21(l)(5) ............................................................................................................................................. 4
R.C. 3721.22 .................... ......... ............ ......................................... ....... ......... ........,..,..,..,..,,..,..,........,....... passim
R.C. 3721.22(B) .................................................................................................................................................... 9
R.C. 3721.23........................................... ................. ____ ................................................... ........ ....................... 7,, 8
R.C. 3721.23(A) .................................................................................................................................................. 9
R.C. 3721.23(B)(2) ........................................................................................................................................... 9
R. C. 3 7 2 1.2 ^ (C) ...................................................................................................................................................... 9
R.C. 3721.24 ........................................ .......... ............ ...... ......................... ....................... ....... ................... passim
KC. 3721.24(A) .........................................................................................................................................1,2,10
R.C. 3721,25 ...................................................................................................................................................7, 8
R.C. 3721.26 ............................................................................................................................................ .passim
Rules
Civ. R. 12 (B) (6) .................................................................................................................................................... 4
vi
P..-
Legislative Materials
Am.Sub.H.B, No. 822.................................... ..................... ....................................................................... passim
Law Review Articles
Sinclair, Only a Sith Thinks Like That: Llewellyn°s °°D€xelgng Canonss" One to Seven, 50
N.Y.i'r,. sch.L.Rev. 919 (2005-2006) ................ ................................................................................ .^3
Talmadge, A New Approach to Statutory Interpretation in Washington, 2 5 Seattle
U.L.Rev.1^^ (2001) ........... ............................. .................. .......... ..................... ....o........,.................... 23
Treatises
Colton, The Use of Canons ofStatutory Constructioni A C^^e Study From Iowa Or ^^^en
Does t"Ghotq" Spell "Fa.^^?" 5 Seton Hall Legis. J. 149 (1980n1982) ....... .............................. ^3
McCaffrey, The Rule In Pari Materia As an Aid to Statutory Construction, 3 Law & L.
Notes 11 (1949) ...o ................................................o.......................................,............................. 22-23
vii
1, Introduction
Appell^e/Cross-Appellant Patricia Huismeyerss causes of action ^^^ip-st
Appel1ants/CrosswAppellees Hospice of Southwest Ohio, Joseph Killian (collectively
"llospice")p and Brookdale Senior Living for retaliation under R.C. 3721.24 fail because
HuIsmeyer®a licensed health professional-never reported any suspected abuse or
neglect to the Ohio Director of liealth.
No licensed health professional who knows or suspetts that
resident has been abtised or neglected * * * shall fail to report
that knowledge or suspicion to the director of health.
(Emphasis addedo)
R.C. 3721.22(A), Appx. 78.
The protection against retaliation afforded by R.C. 3721.24 is tied to this statutory
provision. It provzdesNo person * * * shall retaliate against an employee or aiiother
individual used by the person * * * to perform any work or
services who, in good faith, makes a report of suspected abuse
or neglect, indicates an intention to make such a report;
provides information during an investigation of suspected
abuse [or] igeglect * ** by the director of health; or participates
in a hearing conducted under section 3721.23 of the Revised
Code or in any administrative or judicial proceedings
pertaining to the suspected abuse [or] neglect
R.C. 3721.24(A), Appx. 83.
^ong-standa"ng principles of statutory construction make clear that a court is
prohibited from changing or adding to the words used by the General Assembly in enacting
a statute. Yet the First District Court of Appeals did just when it construed the phrase
te makes a report of suspected abuse or neglect of a resident°D as used in R.C. 3721.24(A) to
mean, oamakes any report of suspected abuse or neglect of a resident to anyone, including a
^`^mily member." But the statute, by its plain terms, does not include the terms "any,°° nor
does it include the phrase °`to anyone, including a family rraember." In fact, as Hospice and
Brookdale acknowledge, R.C. 3721.24(A)a when read in isolation, is silent as to whom a
report of suspected resident abuse or neglect is to be ^nade.
:But merely because it is silent as to whom any such report should be made does not
mean that a court can change or add words to the statute to give it the meaiilng cleslred,
nor does it mean that the statute should be read in isolation. On the contrary, R.C. 3721.24,
read ip, pari materia with R.C. 3721.22, supports the interpretation that the term "report,s
refers to a report made to the Director of Health. Indeed, R.C. 3721.24, along with R.C.
3721.22 thrcaiigh 3721.26, were codified as entirely new statutes when the Ger^eral.
Assembly enacted Am.Sub.1-1.13. No. 822 as part of a comprehensive statutory framework to
protect against resident, abuse and neglect.
That framework protects both the interests of the resident and the reporting
individual by imposing mandatory obligations not only on a licensed health professional to
report suspected abuse or neglect, but on the Director of Health to review and 1rivestigate
those reports. Viewing this framework as a whole as related statutes enacted together
should be, the Geiieral Assembly statutorily empowered the Director of Health with broad
investigatory powers, including subpoena power. Once the Director receives a report of
suspected abuse or neglect, he or she is required to investigate the report, conduct a
hearing on the report, and issue findings based on the allegations in the report. And the
Director is statutorily mandated to refer the matter to the attorney general, county
prosecutor, or other law enforcement official if abuse or neglect is substantiated. Making a
report to an^oTie other than the Director of Health would not further the goals that the
2
legislature intended when it enacted this statutory fra€^ewo€^^ because no one besides the
Director has this broad authority.
The First District, however, ignored this statutory r'ramewo€~k. It read R.C. 3721.24 in
isolation, without resort to R.C. 3721_22 or the other statutes enacted as part of
Am.S€ab.H.B. No. 822's statutory framework for reporting suspected abuse or riegle:ct, and
concluded that the term 'reportj' used in R.C. 3721,24 was unambiguous a€id mear€t any
report made to anyone. See 9,^25/13 Op. at 123, 25, Appx. 18, 19.
This conclusion is wrong for two reasons. First, the First District's interpretation of
ee^^^ort" is only reached by changing words in the statute and adding words that are not
there, a violation of fundamental rules of statutory construction. A€id second, even tY€o€igh
Hospice and Brookdale argued below and continue to argue here that °"report" as used in
R.C. 3721.24 is ambiguous, even if it was not, related statutory provisions enacted together
are read together in par1 materia to determine the General Assezr€blys intent. Because R.C.
3721.24 is related to and enacted at the same time as R.C. 3721.22, both must be read
together. Applying the in pari materia doctrine to related sections of the san€e law does not,
and should not, turn on. a threshold finding of ambiguity. Such a rigid application of this
legal principle is contrary to Ohio statutory-construction jurisprudence, and minimizes the
importance and usefulness of this maxim of con^^ructl.on. Indeed, this Court and courts
around the state and country have long construed related statutes wath.out a threshold
finding of ambigt€gty.
The First Dastn ict's decision should be reversed.
3
11R Statement of facts
A. Hospice employs HuIsmeyer as a registered nurse to provide
hospice services to residents of Brookdale Senior Livfng.
Hu1smeyer is a registered nurse and thus a licensed health professional under R.C.
3721.21(L)o She formerly worked fos- 1iospIce, which provides hospice care to residents of
long-term and residential care facilities. Brookdale is one such facilaq, where Hospice
provided services and where Hulsmeyer worked. Killian is Hospice's Chief Executive
Officer. ^^^ 9^25/13 Op. at ¶ 1, 3, Appx. 9; 7/23/12 Entry, Appx. 61; see alvo R.C.
3 72 2.2 1 (L) (5), Appx. 7 6.
B. Hospice terminates Hulsmeyer's employment; Hulsmeyer sues.
Hulsmeyer claims that Hospice terminated her employment because she reported
suspected neglect to the daughter of a Brookdale resldent. See 9,^25/13 Op. at ¶ 1.0, Appx.
12;, 7,f23/12 Entry, Appx. 61-62. In the fiv^^count coniplaint against Hospice, Killian, and
Brookdale that followed, Hulsmeyer asserted several claims, including claims for
retaliation under R.C. 3721.24 against Hospice, Killian, and B raokdale®Counts I, II, and V
of her complaint. She also asserted a r-lai^ for wrongful discharge in violation of public
policy against Hospice-Count III-and a claim for tortious interference with a business
relationship against Brookdale-Count IV. I&
C. Hospice and Brookdale each file motions to dismiss, in part, for
failure to state a claim for retaliation under R.C. 3721924^ the trial
court grants the motions on that issue.
Because Iiiilsmeyer did not allege (nor could she) that she made the report of
suspected abuse or neglect to the Director of HealthD Hospice and Brookdale each filed prean^^^r mol-ions to dismiss under Civ.R, 12(B)(6) for failure to state a daim upon which
relief can be granted. See 9/25/13 Op, at ¶ 10, Appx. 12; 7/23/12 Entry, Appx. 61. Each
4
argued that the retaliation claims failed as a matter of law because flulsmeyer did not make
a report of suspected abuse or neglect to the Director of Health as required by R.C. 3721,22;
which, as a related section of sarne law, must be read together with R.C. 372124e
The trial court-relying on the Eighth Distrgc1^ Court of Appeals' decision ln A^sham.^^en^er v. Grande Point Health Care Communaty, 8th Dist. No. 74835, 2000 WL 968790, and
^avas v. Marriott Intemati., Inc., Noe 04w4156D 7005 Fed.App. 0812N, 2005 WI, 244S945 (6th
Cir. Oct. 4, 2005)^^greed that R.C. 3721.22 and 3721.24 should be read together and,
when read together, Hulsmeyer's retaliation claims faaled as a matter of law because
Iiulsmeyer failed to make a report to the Director of Health as required by RC. 3721.27. See
7,^23/12 Entry, Appx. 63-65. The court dismissed Counts I and SI against the HospIcs:
defendants, and Count V against Brookdale. Id. at 65. The trial court also dismissed
IIulsmeyer's wrongful-disch^^^e claim against flosfSl^^ (Count Ili)a because R,C. 3721.24
provided a statutory remedy that adequately protected society's interest. Id. at 66. The trial
court, however, did not dismiss Hulsrraeyer°s tortzous-iiiterf'eregice claim (Count IV). Id. at
67. Hulsmeyer nonetheless subsequently dismissed that claim with prejudice and appealed
to the First District Court of Appeals. See 9,^25/13 Opo at 110, Appx. 12.
D. The First District reverses, in part, and affinns9 in part.
Contrary to this Court's long6standing statutory construction jurisprudence, the
First District did not read R.C. 3721.24 and 3721.22 in parz materia. Instead, it found that
this maxim did not apply since the term "reporC" as used in R.C. 3721.24 was not
ambigiioais. See 9/25/13 Op. at 123, Appx. 18 („The statute provides protection for any
reports of suspected abuse and neglect that are made or intended to be made, not just
those reports that are made or intended to be made to the Director of fleal.th.'°); see also id.
5
at 12, Appx. 19 ("^^cause the statute is unambiguous and does not liniit reports of
suspected abuse or neglect to only those reports made or intended to be made to the
Director of Health, we need not look to R.C. 3721.22 and 3721,23 for assistance in
interpreting the statute.°°), In reaching this ccsncl.usloii, the court relied on State ex reL
Herman v. Klopfleisch, 72 Ohio St.3d 581. (1.995)„ and noted parenthetically that "tb.e in ^ari
materia doctrine may only be used in interpreting statutes where some doubt or ambiguity
exasts,'° Id. at 125a Appx. 19, It thereafter read R.C. 3721.24 in gsolation. and found the
report of suspected abuse or neglect made to the resident's daughter sufficient to state a
claim for retaliation and reversed. that part of the trial courtxs judgment finding
flulsinever's retaliation claim under R.C. 3721.24 failed as a matter of law,1d. at 132, Appx.
21. It nonetheless affirmed the court's decision as to Hulsmeyer's claim against Hospice for
wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, concluding that she had an adequate
remedy for retaliation under R.C. 3721.24, Id, at 131, Appx. 21.
Recognizing that its judgment conflicted with that of the Eigb.tta District in ArshamBrenner, the First District certified the following issue to this Court:
Must an employee or another individual used by the person or
government entity to perform any work or services make a
report or indicate an iritention to report suspected abuse or
neglect of a nursing 1^ome resident to the Ohio Director of
Health to state a claim for r^taliatioii under R.C. 3721o24(,^)^
9/25/13 Op, at 132, Appx. 15n16..
E. Hospice and Brookdale jointly seek further review by the
Supreme Court of Ohio; Hulsmeyer cros^-appea1s9
Hospice and Brookdale thereafter jointly filed a Notice of Certified Conflict (Appx.1)
and this Court determined a conflict exists. See 3/19/14 J. ^^try Hulsmeyer v. Hospice, Case
6
No. 2013-1644. 1-laspic^ and Brookdale also sought discretionary review on jurisdictional
grounds as well and Huismeyer crosswappealed. Hulsmeyer v, Hospice, Case No. 2013-1766.
The Court accepted the appeal and cr^^^-appeal, and consolidated the cases. See 3/19/1.4 J.
Entry,Huls,^^^er v. I-k'ospice, Case No. 2013-1766.
IIIe Argument
ProausItimmfLaw
R.C. 3721.24 and 3721.22 are related statutes that should be
read together and, when read together, a claim for retaliation
under R.C. 3721.24 requires a person reporting suspected
abuse or neglect to make that report to the Director of HeaItlge
A. R.C. 3721.24 and 3721.22 were enacted together as part of a
comprehensive statutory framework for reporting suspected
resident abuse and neeect.
Of paramount concern when construing statutory provisions is the General
Assembly's legislative intent. Bartchy v. State Ba^ qf Edn., 120 Ohio St.3d 205, 2008^Ohlo48266 T 16. And that intent is expressed in the terms used in the statute, not only according
to their common usage, but when considered in context as well, 1d.; see also R.C. 1.42. f'[11t is
a cardinal riale of statutory construction that significance and effect sliould if possible be
accorded every word, phrase, sentence and part of an act." Wachend€^rf v. Shaver, 149 Ohio
St. 231, 237 (1948)e
Here, the General Assembly codified R.C. 3721.22 and 372L24 as entirely new
sections when it enacted Arn.Sub.H.B. No. 822 (effective December 13,1990) and they were
enacted together along with other related and entirely new sectlons-R.C. 3721,23,
3721.25, and 3721.26-as part of a comprehensive statutory framework for reporting
suspected resid^^it abuse and neglect, investigating those reports, and protecting those
7
whom make the reports. See Am.Sub.H.B.. Noe 822, Appx. 88, 100-102.1 These newly
codified and jointly enacted sections-R.C, 3721.22 through 3721.26-----are
written
consecutively in the Revised Code. Summarized, they are:
• R.C. 3721.22 ^^^erigs reports of resident abuse and subsection (A) in
particular requires a licensed health professional to report suspected
abuse or neglect to the Director of fleal$li (Appx. 78);
• RZ 3721a23 governs the procedure the Director of Health follows for
receiving, ^evieMng, and investigating (including conducting a
hearing on) a report of abuse or neglect, and requires reporting
substantiated cases to the attorney ger^^ral➢ county prosecutor, or
other appropriate law enforcement official (Appx. 80);
• RXe 3721.24 prohibits retaliating against the person making a report
of suspected abuse or neglect, includirig retaliatory discharge (Appx.
83);,
• RZ 372ir25 pi-otects from disclosure the identity of the person
making a report of suspected abuse or neglect at any time after the
report was made (Appx. 85); ^iid
• R.C. 3721a26 gives the Director of Health rulemaking powers "to
implement R.C. 3721.21 to KC. 3721..25°" (Appx. 87).
As a whole, these entirely new sections enacted together evince a statutory
framework that provides a meclganism for reporting and investigating su.spe€.°ted resident
abuse and neglect. As part of that framework, tlge General Assembly made clear that
reports of stispected abuse or neglect are to be made to the Director of Hea1th, In fact, it
imposes mandatory obligations on licensed health professionals to make such a report:
,. This Act also amended R.C. 3721.21-the definitions statute-to include new terms
needed to give effect to R.C. 3721.22 through 3721,26. See Am.Sub.H.B. No. 822, Appx. 100.
8
No licensed bealth professional who knows or suspects that a
resident has been abused or neglected, or that a resident°s
property has been misappropriated, by any andlvidual used by
a long-term care facility or residential care facility to provide
services to residerits, shall fail to report that knowledge or
suspicion to the director of health.
Fl..C. 3 72 1.2 2 (A), Appx. 78.2
Indeed, the Director of Health, and only the Director of Health, receives the report.
R.C. 3721.23(A)D Appx. 80. The Director thereafter reviews the report and, ➢ with the broad
investigative powers (including stibpoena power) autb.orized under R.C. :1721.23(B)(2),
conducts an investigation and hearing according to rules adopted by the Director for these
statutory provisions. See R.C. 3721.23(A) aiid. 3721.2fsAppx. 80, 87. And if abuse or neglect
is substantiated after that review, the Director has mandatory obligations to report the
abuse or neglect to the attorney general, county prosecutor, or other appropriate law
enforcement official. See R.C. 3721.23(C), Appx. 81. The rulemaking provision-R.C.
3721.26-underscores the interrelatedness of R.C. 3721.22 and 3721.24. That section, on
its face, authorizes the Director of Health to adopt rules {{to implement sections 3721.21 to
3721e25,°° See R.C. 3721.26, Appx. 87.
It is within the midst of this statut.-ory framework that R.C. 3721..24-tb.e statutory
provision protecting against retaliation-is placed. It pravldes:
Na person ^^^ government entity shall retaliate against an
employee or ^iiotlger individual used by the person or
government entity to perform any work or services who, in
good faith, makes a report of suspected abuse or neglect of a
resident or misappropriation of the property of a resident;
andicates an intention to make such a report; provides
7- Reports by any other person, including a resident, are merely permissive, but they are still
made to the Director of 1-lealtbo See R.C. 3721.22(B), Appx. 78.
9
1nformaLlon during an investigation of suspected abuse,
neglect, or misappropriation conducted by the director of
health; or participates in a hearing conducted under section
3721,23 of the Revised Code or in any other administrative or
judicial proceedings pertaining to the suspected abuse, neglect,
or misapproprlatzon, For purposes of this division, retaliatory
actions include dischargzrap, demoting, or transferring the
employee or other person, preparing a negative work
performance evaluation of the employee or other person,
reducing the benefits, pay, or work privileges of the employee
or other person, and any other action intended to retaliate
agairis^ the employee or other person.
1I.C. 3721,24(A), Appx. 83.
R.C. 3721.21 through 3721.26 evince a statutory framework that must be read
together. Indeed, R.C. 3721.21 defines the terms used in R.C. 3721.22 through R.C. 3721,26
and each section references others within this statutory scheme. By doing so, the General
Assembly made clear that it intended that these sections be read together.
B. R.C. 3721a24 is silent as to whom a report is to be made, which
underscores that it is subject to more than one interpretation.
R.C. 3721.24, itself, is silent as to vvhom a report of suspected abuse or neglect is to
be made. This silence makes "report°° subject °°to more than one interpretation" and
therefore requiring further interpa•etatioii to effect the legislature's in.tent in enacting the
statute.
This Court's decision in Sheet Metal Workers' Interna^tl. Assrao Loc. Union No. 33 v.
Gene's Refi-ig., Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc., 122 Ohio St.3d 248, 2009-Ohio¢2747,
supports this conclusion. In that case, an, employee worked in an aff-sate fabrication shop of
contractor Gene's Refrigeration, which had been awarded a contract for the construction of
a local fire station. `Fhe employee claimed he was entitled to be paid the prevailing wage
under the prevailingwwage law, R,C. 4115,05, for the project. Gene's Refrigeration, however,
10
argued that the prevailing-wage law applied only to work performed on the project site,
not work performed off-site. Id. at 125-27.
Construing the statute, the Court noted the statute's silence as to where the
employee must be working®l.e.y either org the project site or ^ff-site. And it was this silence
alone that made the statute "subject to varying interpretatloigs" requiring a construction
fftliat carries out the intent of the General Assembly." Id, at 129. To do so, the court looked
beyond the statute to the prevailing-wage "statutory scheme."
R.C. 4115.05 does not specifically refer to persons whose work
is conducted away frorn or off the project site. Other
paragraphs within R.C. 411.05 and elsewhere in the prevaaling_
wage statutory scheme, however, provide irgsigliL into the
scope of the law.
Id. at 1f 34. The Court thereafter c^^^^^riaed the prevailing-wage statutory framework, along
with related administrative regulations, in pari materia to conclude that R.C. 4115.05
applies orily to persons working at the project site. Id. at 143; see also State ex reI. ^^^^^^ ^
Brunner, 120 Ohio St,3d 110, 2Q08-Ohlo-5041s 146 (construing related registratlonr^quarement election statutes together in pari materia➢ and also along with related
constitutional provision, where the statute was salent as to the date a citizen must been
registered to be entitled to vote in a particular election).
Trie silence in R.C. 3721.24-----1,e., not specifying to whom a report of abuse or neglect
is to be made to be entitled to the protection. against r^tallation-is no different than the
silence found in the statute at issue iri Sheet Metal Workers or CoTvin. Even Hulsmeyer's
arguments in the First District confirms the varying in'terpretations that R.C. 3721.24's
silence portends. At one point, Huls^^^^s- argued that the report in R.C. 3721.24 could be
made to ariyonea but then limited that "to any appropriate agency," Compare Hulsmeyer Br.
11
at 7 with Br. at 10. Hospice and Brookdale pointed this out in hi-ieI'ing below, noting that
Hulsineyer's vacillating arguments as to the meaning of report underscored the term's
ambiguity. Hospice Br. at 7; Brookdale Br. at 6.
R.C. 3721.24(A) then is not plairi aiid unambiguous as Hulsmey^r argues or the First
District held. Instead, both add words to R.C. 3721.24 that are not there and change words
that are. By concluding that a report of suspected abuse or neglect need not be made the
Director oj'Health as this statutory framework requires, the appellate court has effectively
said that "a report of suspected abuse or neglect" means "any report of suspected abuse or
neglect made to anyone,,, including a resident's daughter as HuIsmey^r-a licensed health
professional with mandatory obligations under R.C. 3721.22(A)------alleges she did here. But
changing "a report of suspected abuse or neglect" to "any report of suspected abuse or
iieglect" and then adding the phrase "made to anyone," or as HuIsm^^^r also argued below
"made to any appropriate entity," both changes and adds words to a validly enacted statute,
which. courts cannot do. See Wilson v. Kasich, 134 Ohio St.3d 221, 201.2-Ohio-5367, 140
("I^ essence, relators' interpretation replaces the phrase, ttto the extent"°-a phrase that
vests the apportionment board mrith di.scretiori-with the conditional term "if." But this
interpretation changes the meaning of Section 7(D), which we cannot do."); State ex rel.
C€arna v. 7`eay.s Valley Loc. Sch. Dast. Bd. of Edn., 131 Ohio St.3d 478, 2012MOhioR1484, 7 24
(noting that the appellate court "improperly included words in. the statute that were not
there" and thereafter cautioning against "judicial legislating" by adding woa ds to a statute);
Pratte v. Stewart, 125 Ohio St.3d 473, 2010-Ohioa1860, 149 ("Pratte is asking this court
* * * to contravene established axioms of statutory construction by inserting words in the
statute that were not used by the General Assembly."); W^chendorf, 149 Ohio St. at 237-38,
12
C. As related sections enacted together, R.C. 3721a^4 and 3721s22
should be read together in pari materia.
This Court has made clear that related statutes must be construed together and read
in pari mater€a;
ln interpreting a statute, a court's principal concern is the
legislative intent in enacting the statute. In order to determine
that intent, a court must first look at the words of the statute
itself. We are also mindful that e=sall statutes which relate to the
same subject matter must be read in pari rra^^eria,7ii In
construing such statutes together, full application must be
gi^en. to both statutes unless they are irreconcilable.
Car,^^s v. Kemp, 104 Ohio St.3d 629, 2004-®b.la-7107, 116. (Citations omltted.)
And this Court has further made clear that statutes enacted or amended together at
the same time are related statutes should be corgstrued together.
Where two sections of a statute relating to the same subject
matter are amended in the same act, effective at the same time,
they are in par1 materia, and full effect must be given to the
provisions of bofih sections if the same can, be reconciled.
State ex r^eL O`Neil v. GrijTith, 136 Ohio St. 526 (1940), paragraph one of the syllabus; see
also ^^ of Park G'ommrs. of Cleveland Metro. Park Dist. v. Wyman, 1.16 Ohio St. 441 (1.927)a
paragraph two of the syllabus (appropriations statutes were "orlginally enacted in 1869 as
parts of the same bill, and have b^^ii carried into re-enactments in substantially the same
form ever since, and are in pari materia and will be so construed as to give force to each");
Emerson v. Seville Elevator Co., 38 Ohio App3d 55, 56-57 (9th Dlst.1987^ (reading R.C
926.01(D) as to the meaning of Q`deposl^orr" witb. R.C. 925.18 in parl materia because they
e,relate to the same subject matter, were amended an. the same Act and became
effective at the same time").
13
As early as 1924 this Court recognized the usefulness of in parl materia as a maxim
of construction with respect to statutes and laws enacted at the same time, and have
applied it without the rigidity applied by the First District here. In State e.^ reL Crawford v.
Indus. Comm. of Ohio, for example, this Court was confronted with construing a for^er
version of a workers' compensation statute that appeared clear and mandatory when read
in isolation, and would have required continuing payments to the estate of the widow of an
injured worker. Findirgg it unnecessary to °°resort to a technical analysis of the language" of
the statute, the Court stated in unequivocal terms that the statute °`must be construed in
para mater'ia" with all other workers' compensation laws.
I'h^y are all parts of the same law, They are all enacted
pursuant to the same constitutional authority and must be
harmonized by the Commission as not to create inequalities; so
as not to create rights in favor of one class of persons wholly
inconsistent with the rights of others.
State ex reL Crawl€zrd v. Inda^s, Comm, of Ohio,1^^ Ohio St. 271, 280 (1924).
So too is R.C. 3721.24. It is part of the same law that codified R.C. 3721.22 and R.C.
3721,23, 3721.25, and 3721.26. See Am.Sub.HeB, No. 822, Appx. 88, 100-102. To construe
R.C, 3721.24 in isolation would create inequalities in investigating, and acting upon, reports
of suspected abuse or neglect. No one other than the Director of Health is empowered with
subpoena power to investigate a report of suspected abuse, and no one other than the
Director can hold a hearing to further that investigation and report those findings to
appropriate law enforcement officials if abuse or neglect is substantiated, "I`he inequalities
foretold in Crawford hold e€lu al force today.
Other courts have recognized that R.C. 3721.22 and 3721.24 are related and should
be read in pari materia. In A^sh^^^Brenner v. Grande Point Health Care Community, 8th Dist.
14
No. 74835, 2000 WL 968790 (July 13, 2000), for example, trie plaintiff sued her employer
for retaliatory discharge under R.C. 3721.24, Although she made no report of suspected
abuse to the Director of Health, she argued that "reports" to her employer satisfied the
statute because the statute is silerit as to whom the report is to be made. ld. at ^`6. The court
disagreed.
Under R.C. 3721.22(A), a licensed health professional is obliged
to report suspected abuse or neglect "to the director of health."
Sections B and. C describe voluntary reporting to the "director
of health." The intervening statute, R.C. 3721.23, refers to the
duties of the director of health to investigate allegataonse
Reading these statutes together, we belzeve that R.C. 3721.24
forbids retaliation for reports, whether obligatory or
voluntary, made only to the director of health pursuant to R.C.
3721.22. Any reports to others, such as to appellant°s
employer, of suspected resident abuse or neglect do iiot qualify
for protection under R.C. 3721.24(A). (Emphasis added.)
Id. at *6.
Relying on Arsham, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Davis v. Marriott Inter'natf.,
,^nc,,,No. 04a4156, 2005 Fed.App. 0812N, 2005 WL 2445945 (6th Cir. Oct. 4, 2005), likewise
construed R.C. 3721.22 and 3721.24 together. In that case, the plaintiff argued that a report
made to her supervisors satisfied R.C. 3721.24 even if she did not report suspected abuse
to the Director of Health. Id. at *2. The Sixth Circuit disagreed, read both R.C. 3721.24 and
3721.22 together, and held that her complaint failed to state a claim for retaliatory
discharge under R.C. 3721.241^^cause she did not allege that she made or intended to make
a report to the Director of Health. Id. at *3; see also Dolan v. St. Mary's Mem. Home, 153 Ohio
App.3d 441, 2003LLOh1o-3383D 116 (Ist Dist.) (reading R.C. 3721.22 and 3721.24 together
in the context of analyzing whether the plaintiff had a claim for wrongful discharge ln.
is
violation of pub^^^ policy and noting that R.C. 3721.22 requires a licensed health profession
to report suspected resident abuse to the Director of :I:-lea1th),
Arshum and Davis, and even Dolan by inference, recognized that R.C. 3771.22 and
3721.24 are related statutes that must be read together. And when read together, Ffreportss
as used in R.C. 3721.24 means a report made to the Director of Health.
D. Construing related statutes together in parf materia does not
require a threshold finding of am^^gu^^
Ohio has codified many of its rules of statutory construction, including a rule of
construction for anibiguous statutes. Written in permissive terms, R.C. 1.49 allows, but
does not require or limit, a court to consider several matters, including: (1) the object
sought to be attained; (2) the circumstances und^^^ which the statute was enacted; (3) the
legislative history; (4) the common law or former statutory provisions, including laws upon
the same or similar subjects; (5) the consequences of a particular construction; and (6) the
administrative construction of the statutr:. R.C, 1.49(A)°(F)D Appx. 69.
Nothing in this rule of construction prevents a court from applying the in pa^^
materia maxim only upon a threshold finding of ambiguity as the First District so rigidly
^oncitided. See 9/25/13 Op. at 125, Appx. 19. On the co^traryr courts may consider laws on
related subjects when a statute is ambiguous, but there is no legal basis for resorting to a
rule of construction only when a statute is ambiguous.
This Courit''s decisi+^ii in State ex reL Herman v. .Klopfleisch, 72 Ohio St.3d 581 (1995),
supports this conclusion. The First District relied on this case as its authority that the in
pari materia doctrine is only applied when there is "some doubt or am^^guity'" in a s^^tute..
9/13/13 Op. at 125, Appx. 19 (stating parenthetically that "th^ in pari materia doctrine
16
may only be used in interpreting statutes where some doubt or ambiguity exists°°). But
Klopfleisch does riot say that. Instead, this Court merely said-and R.C. 1.49 ^onfir°ms-t1iat
the `°in pari materia doctrine may be used in ar^^e.-Preting statutes where some doubt or
ambiguity exists." (Emphasis added.) Id. at 585. It did no^ say that it is only used when there
is an ambiguity as the First District stated. In fact, the Klopfleisc,^ court went on to say that
ss[a]ll statutes relating to the same general subject matter must be read in pari materia°' and
that they must be given "a reasonable construction so as to give proper force and effect to
each and all of the statutes." Id.
And other courts, like the Ki^^^^^^^^ court, have relied on the permissive nature of
R.C. 1.49, all quite a^propr1ate1y, and construed related statutes in pari materia when faced
with an ambiguous statute. See Blair v. Bd, of Trustees of Sugarcreek Twp., 132 Ohio St.3d
151, 2012-Oh1o62165, 117w18 (flnding R.C. 505.49(B)(3) ambiguous and resorting to an in
pari materia reading to clarify the ambiguity); Cheap Escape Co., Inc. v. Haddox, L.L.C, 120
Ohio St.3d 493, 2008-Ohlon6323, 113 (finding it "aI'pr€^priate" to review related ^tatiztes in
pari materia to resolve ambiguity in R.C. 2901,18(A)).
That is not to say, however, that there is no authority for the First District's
conclusion. Indeed, this Court in State ,^^^rm Mut .A.uto. Ins. Co, v. Webb, 54 Ohio St.3d 61
(1990), stated in clear terms that the "rule of statutory construction of in pari materia is
applicable only when tli^ terms of a statute are ambiguous or its significance is doubtful."
Id. at 63. No cases have been identified, however, relying on this precise language from
State Farm. This Court has nonetheless, at times, criticized courts for reading related
statutes in pari materia when the language of a statute is unambiguous. See, e.g., State v.
Robinson, 124 Ohio St.3d 76, 2009-Ohio-5937, 131.
17
But this Court, too, has long applied the in pari materia doctrine without a threshold
finding of anibgguity. In State ex reL Crawford v. Indus. Comm. of Ohio, this Court construed a
former workers° compensation statute in pard materia with other workers' compensation
statutes and the Ohio Constitution despite tEge "seemingly imperative language" of the
statute at issue. Crawford, 110 Ohio St. 271, 285 (1924). In such a situation, the Court
stated unequivocally that an otherwise unambiguous statute "must yield" to other related
provisions to give effect to the legislature's intent. Id.
The Court relied on the in ^^^i materia doctrine again in Krueger v. Krc^^^erD 111
Ohio St. 369 (1924), without a threshold finding of ambiguity. In that case, it construed
three related probate statutes in parl materia in resolving whether an after-Y^orii child not
specifically provided for in the testator's will could maintain a partition action at the
testator's death. The Court stated unequivocally that the statute entitling the after-born
child to the same share of the estate was `rnot of doubtful meaning" (fd, at 373), yet
nonetheless construed this statute iivit1^ other related statutes in ultiftiately concluding that
the after-^^rn child was entitled to maintain the action. Id. at 380.
This Court undertook the same analysis in State ex reL O'Nei1 v. Gr^fflt^.^D 136 Ohio St.
526 (1940). At issue in that case was the construction of a statute involving the
appointment of members to county boards of elections. Construing related statutes on the
same subject matter amended at the same time together in pari materfa ➢ the court found
the stattites "entirely reconcilable" and enforceable. Id. at 529; see also id. at paragraph one
of the syllabus.
More recently, this Court ^gaan. constriied related statutes together in paz°i materia
in State v. Buehler, 113 Ohio St.3d 114, 20a7-OhioM1246p even though it foaind nothing
18
anabfguous or con^^cting about the statutes at issue. Id. at 1, 31 (QQWe recogigize that these
statutes are not ambiguous and are not in conflict."); see also ad. at paragraph one of the
syllabus ("A careful, commonsense reading of R.C. 2953,74(C) in pari materia with R.C.
2953.72 and 2953,73 and the remainder oFR.C. 2953.74 illustrates the intent of the General
Assembly to authorize the trial court to exercise its discretlon in how to proceed when
rulaiig on an eligible inmate's application for DNA testing.").
Other decisions from this Court and other courts have analyzed related s^^tu-Les
similarly. In State ex re1, Taxpayers for Westerville Schools v. Franklin Cty. Bd. Pf EIectiansr
133 Ohio St.3d 153, 2012-Ob,io-4267, for example, relator sought a writ of mandamus
requiring the county board of elections to place a levy-decreas^ question on the ballot for
the November 2012 election. At issue was the meaning of "rate of levy" as that term is used
in R.C. 5705.261„ The Court found nothing ambiguous about the "rate of levy" language in.
R.C. 5705„261 yet it nonetheless construed this statute in pari materia with R.C.
5705.192(B) and 319.301 to find that the relator was not eiititled to the writ. Id. at 118-23,
26; see also o5ugarcreek Tuvpa v. Centerville, 133 Ohio St.3d 467, 2012-Ohlon4649, ^ 20, 23
(finding the language in. R.C. 709,023(H) plain but nonetheless "boisteriiignb its
gnterpr^^ation of the statute by construing with R.C. 5709.40(F)); Lawrence v. Youngstown,
133 Ohio St.3d 174, 2012-Ob.io-4247, 124 (construing R.C. 4123.90 in. ^^^i materia with
the R.C. 4123.95 to find that the term "discharge" means notice of discharge, not the date of
discharge); State ex r°el.Ama Subconta^^^tors Assn,x Inc. v. Ohio State Univ., 129 Ohio St.3d 111,
2011-O1~aioM2^81, 138n39 (construing R.C. 153.54(A) in ^ari materia with other provisions
in R.C. Chapter 153 to find the ^erzn. "bidding for a contract" as used in R.C. 153.54(A) is tied
to an award to the "lowest responsive and responsible bidder"); State ex reL Lucas Cty.
19
Republican Party Fx^^^^^^e Com^^ v. Brunner, 125 Ohio at.3d 427, 2010LLOb.io-1873, 114m
16 (construing R.C. 3501.07 in pari materia witb. R.C. 3517.05 and finding relator not
entitled to writ of mandamus compelling Secretary of State to appoint him to local county
board of elections); State ^x reL Citizensfor Open, Responsive & Accountable ^'^^t v. Register,
116 Ohio St.3d 88, 2007-Ohio-5542, 128n36 (construing R.C. 121.22, 1.49.43, and 507.04 in
pari materia in determining whether a township officer has certain duties that would
entitle relator to writ of mandamus that these duties be performed); Suez Co. v. Young, 118
Ohio App. 415, 418 (6tb. Dist.1963) (construing various sections of Woa^^en;s
Compensation Act "i^ ^ari materia to arrive at an. interpretation of the intention of the
Legislature").
And yet still other decisions from this Court construe related statutes in pari materia
wlien a statute is silent on a particular issue. In State e.^ reL Shisler v. Ohio Public f.'mplo,ixees
Retirement Sys., 122 Ohio St.3d 148, 2009nOb.ioLL2522, for example, relator sought a writ of
mandamus compelling the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) to accept her
late husband's election for survivorship benefits that he executed before his deatb. but was
not received by PERS until after his deatb., Noting that the relevant statute-R.C. 145.46was silent as to whether the election is invalidated if the retiree dies before it is received by
PERS, the Court construed this statute in pari materia with related statutes to find that it
was. Id. at 120o
Now it could be said that a statute's silence on a particular issue means the statute is
ambiguous and subject to varying interpretations as this Court said in Sheet Metal
Contractors and C'€^^^in di.scLissed in Section iii(B). But the Shisler court did find that to be
so. liistead, it said that R.C. 145.46 and related statutes tt.bave unequivocal mean%ngs°° and
20
yet the Court still construed these related statutes together. Shisler, 122 Ohio St.3d 148,
2009yOhfo-2522, 125.
The same is true of the statute at issue in Hughes v. Registr°axr, Ohio Bur. of Motor
Vehicles, 79 Ohio St.3d 305 CIL997). At issue in that case was whether an Ohio-llcensed
driver convicted of a DUI in Kentucky would be entitled to ^^^^patirsrgal driving privileges
during the suspension of his driving privileges as a result of the conviction. Had the driver
been convicted in Ohio of the same offense, there was no question that R.C. 4507.16 would
allow him occupational driving privileges. But Ohio residents convicted in another state
were governed then by a different statute, R.C. 4507.169, which provided no such
privileges. This Court noted that this statute "does not expressly grant that right.`r Id. at 306.
There was nothing ambiguous about R.C. 4507.169 and it did not conflict XA.'ath R„C. 4507.116j
it was just silent on the issue of occupational driving privileges. This Court nonetheless
c®nstriied these two related statutes in parl materia to find the driver entitled to petition
for occupational driving privileges. Id. at 309.
These cases illustrate that the in pari materia doctrine is not a rigid, inflexible
doctrine as the First District concluded. Certainly its use may be appropriate when a statute
is ambiguous or doubtful, as ^^^^emplated by RX, 1.49 and Klopfleisch. But it is also is
adaptive and useful in construing related statutes enacted together as part of a particular
statutory framework even when there is no ambiguity or conflict, especially in situations
when a statute is silent on a particular issue.
And it should be used here when construing R.C. 3721.24. As shown, this statutory
provision is silent as to whom a report of suspected abuse or neglect is to be made to be
afforded the protection against retaliation the statute provides. But R.C. 3721.24 tvas
21
enacted at the same time as part of the same legislation eriactlng R.C. 3721.22, 3721,23,
3721.25, and 3721.26, as part of comprehensive statutory framework for reporting
suspected resident abuse and neglect. And this framework makes clear that a report of
suspected abuse or igeglect is to be made to the Director of 1-..lealth.
E. The in par^ materaa doctrine is wellP^^ta^^^shed in other courts as
well and likewise support its use here:
The United States Supreme Court 1ias also recognized the wellM^^tablashed, principle
that statutes should be construed in pari materia where, as here, they concern the same
subject matter and were enacted on the same date by the same legislative body. See, e.,g.,
Patton v. United States, 281 U.S. 276, 278 (1.930) (`°T^e rirst ten amendments and the
original Constitution were substantially conternporaneous, and should be construed in pari
materia"); Vane v. Newcombe, 132 U3. 220, 235 (1889) (recognizing the state of Indiana's
policy of construing statutes in para materia when there was any doubt as to their mearglr€g
and the statutes concerned the same subject matter and were passed around the same
time); Erienbaugh Y. United .5tates, 409 U,S, 239, 243-244 (1972) (°°A legislative body
generally uses a particular word with a consistent meaning in a given context." The rule rf€s
but a logical extension of the principle that individual section's of a sirigl^ statute should be
construed together"); United States v. Stewart, 311 U.S. 60, 64 (1940) ("I`hat these two acts
are in pari materia is plain. Both deal with precisely the same subject matter"); Wells v.
Supervisors, 102 U.S. 625, 632 (1880) (when hvo provisions of a state statute governing
bonds were °°ir^ pari materia and enacted at the same session of the legislature, they are to
be taken as one law").3
3 See also McCaffrey, The Rule In Parp€ Materia As an Aid to Statutory Construction, 3 Law & L.
22
Similarly, many other state supreme courts have also explicitly recognized that
related statutes enacted contemporaneously should be read in pari materia. See, e,g., Kam v.
Noh, 770 P.2d 414, 417 (Haw.1.989)a Wyoming State Treasurer v. Casper, 551 P.2d 687, 697
(Wyo.1976) ("Statutes which are passed at the same session of the legislature, relating to
the same subject matter, are to be construed together in par € matea ia., especially if they
were to take effect on the same day"); ^ou^^ey v. State Dept. of Health qJ-West Virginia, 388
S.E.2d 491, 496 (W.Va.1989) ("The rule that statutes in pari materla should be construed
together has the greatest probative force, in tb.e case of statutes relating to the same subject
matter passed at the same session of the legislature, especially if they were passed or
approved or take effect on the same day"); State v. Knapp, 843 S.W.2d 345, 347 (Mo.1992)
^"When. the same or similar words are used in different places within the same legislative
act and relate to the same or similar subject matter, then the statutes are in para materia
and should be construed to achieve a harmonious interpretation of the statute"); Donaghue
v. Bunkley, 25 So.2d 61, 69 (A1a.1946) ("The rule [of ln. parl materia] applies with particular
force to statutes wb.ich are enacted at the same time, or about the same time because of the
fact that the situation presents the same men acting on the same subject, and the
Notes 11, 11 (1949) (11,The whole statute is to be viewed and compared in all its parts, in
order to ascertain the ^^earzang of any of its parts"); Coltond I'he Use of Canons of Statutory
Constructione A Case Study From Iowa Or When Does r'Ghoti"Spell `°,1^^sh?' 5 Seton Hall Legis.
J. 149, 164 (1.980-1982) (in discussing the purpose of statutory construction, noting tliat
trie court is not "permitted to write into the statute words which are not there. Rather, the
court must look to what the legislature said not at what it should have or might have
sald."); Sinclair, Only a S^^h Thinks Like That: Lt^^^^^yn's "Dueling Canonsb,r One to Seven, 50
N.Yol..Sch.l..^ev. 9119, 974 (2005M2006) (noting the well-accepted principle of construing
statutes together wb.en. they relate to the same subject matter or have a common purpose);
Talmadge, A i'^^^ Approach to Statutory Interpretation in Washington, 25 ^^attfe U.L.Rev.
179, 200 (2001) (noting that the principle of in pari materia has been called a "cardinal
rule" in Washin^^on.).
23
presumption is that the acts were imbued with the same spirit aiid actuated by the same
policy"); Peoples Bridge Co. of Harrisburg v. Shroyer, 50 A.Zd 499 (Paa194'^) (construing two
acts in pari materia where they were approved on the same day); State v. Dum1erx 559 P.2d
798 (Kan.1977) (construing statutes in pari ^iateria where they were enacted at the same
time as part of a uniform act regulating highway traffic).
This principle is well illustrated in Kam ^?Voh. In that case, the Hawaii Suprerne
Court, when reviewing the statutory duration of a restrictive covenant, considered the
entire chapter in which the following provision was found. "all restrictions relating to the
use of residential lots sold in fee simple shall expire witlii^ ten years after issuance of the
deed." 770 P.2d at 417. At issue was the meaning of the phrase "relating to the use,°" The
court considered the way the word "use" was employed throughout the chapter, because
"laws ln. pari niateria, or upon the same subject matter, shall be construed with reference to
each other * * * In the absence of ari express intention to the ^ontram words or phrases
used in two or more sections of a statute are presumed to be used in the same sense
througl^out." Id. Moreover, the court found that this rule `°has the greatest probative force
in the case of statutes relating to the same subject matter passed at the same session of the
legislature, especially if they were enacted on the same day.°° Id.; see also Knapp, 843 S.W.2d
345 (using principles of in pat-i materi^ to conclude that the word "person" had the same
meaning in two separate ^^^tutes).
F. Strong public policy interests support reading R.C. 3721Q24 and
3721.,22 together to effect the General a^^^emb1y's intent.
Failing to read R.C. 3721.24 and 3721.22 together in pari materia would jeopardize
the entire statutory framework for reporting suspected resident abuse and neglect enacted.
24
by Am.Sub.1I,13. No. 822. That framework established a comprehensive framework for
reporting, reviewIn& and investigating reports of suspected abuse or neglect made to the
Director of Health. Under the First District's isolated reading of R.C. 3721.24 ➢ an employee
need not report suspected abuse to the Director of Health to be afforded the protection
from retaliation the statute provides, and meant to be provided, to those making those
reports to the Director. This inflexible and rigid construction of the statute ignores the
mandate of R.C. 3721.22, vvhich requires licensed health professionals to report suspected
abuse to the Director of 1-Iealth. It is against public policy to permit licensed healthcare
professionals whistleblower protection under R.C. 3721.24 when those alleged
whistleblowers did not even carry out their own explicit obligations under R.C. 3721o21
There is no threat, as Hulsmeyer argued below, that reading R.C. 3721.22 and R.C.
3721,24 togetlier would expose residents to a gr^^^er risk of abuse. Hulsmeyer confuses
protection of residents with protection of employee whistleblowers. Importantly, a separate
provision of the Revised Cade-R.Co 3721.17-provides protection against retaliation for
violating 'any right set forth in sections 3721.10 to 3721.17" aaid provides a separate cause
of action against the person or home committing the violation. See R.C. 3721.17(Gr), Appx.
71. Construing R.C. 3721.22 and 3721.24 together would have no effect on this provision,
and specifically, does not leave residents without any protection.
25
Construing R.C. 3721.24 in pari materia with R,C, 3721.22 to require that the report
referenced in R.C. 3721,24 be made to fhe Director of Health is also consistent with Ohio
precedent mandating that whistleblower statutes be s1tri^tly construed, See Kulch v.
Structural Fibers, Inco, 78 Ohio St.3d 134, 152-153 (1997); Contrers^s v. Ferro Corp., 73 Ohio
St.3d 244, 246R48 (1.995); Abrams v. Am. Computer Tech,, 168 Ohio App..3d 362, 2006-Ohiom
4032, 140 (1st Dist.); Grove v. Fresh Mark, Iraa; 156 Ohio App.3d 620,2004LLOhio-1728p 7 30
(7th Dist.). This Court has held that failure to strictly comply with the requirements of the
Whistleblower Protection Act under R.C. 4112.52 precludes that employee from gaining
protection under the Act.
By codifying R..C. 3721.22 at the same time as R.C. 3721.24 as part of Am.Suh,H.B.
No. 822, the General Assembly inciuded, a similar limitation to whistleblowers seeking the
protectzon. of R.C. 3721.24: the requirement that licensed healthcare professioraais first
report suspected abuse or neglect to the Director of Health. I-iuism^^er's failure to do so
precludes her from gaining protection under R.C. 3721.24.
These strong ptahiic policy considerations favor reading R.C. 3721.24 in paa^^ materia
with R.C. 3721.22. Th^ ^enera.i Assembly enacted them together at the same time as part
of the same legislation.. And in doing so, it determined that the Director of Health is the
proper official to receive and investigate reports of sus^^cted resident abuse, and further
empowered the Director with the necessary authority and power to take action. At the
same time, the General Assembly irnposed mandatory duties on the Director to carry out
these statutory responsibilities, including the obligation to refer responsible parties for
prosecution when abuse or iiegi^ct is substantiated.
26
I'1J. Conclusion
The judgment of the trial court was correct. R.C. 3721a24 and 3721o22 are related
statutory provisions that should be read together. And when read together, the report
referenced in R.C. 3721.24 means a repor°ls- made to the Director of Health. Because
liulsmeyer made no such report, her claim for retaliation under R.C. 3721.24 fails as a
matter of law. The First District's judgment to the contrary should l^^ ^eversed. It is
contrary to lcsng-s^andlng ^^^tutory-constrtxction jurisprudence and has created corafusion.
in the analysis required when related provisions are at lssue.
^efendants¢Appell^^^s/Cross-Appel1ees Hospice of Southwest Ohio, Joseph Killfan,
and Brookdale Senior Living therefore respectf'ully request that this Court reverse, in part,
the judgment of the First Appel.late District and hold that R.C. 3721.24 and 3721.22 are
related and should be read together, and, when read together, "report°° as used in R.C.
3721.24 ineans a report made to the Director of Health.
Respectfully submitted,
er cansent
IvlicliaelW, awkins (0012707)
^.^.
Faith CoWl'aittaker (0082486)
DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
255 East Fil'th Street, Suite 1900
Clnclnnati, OH 45202
Susan M. Audey (0062818)
(Counsel of Record)
Victoria L. Vance (0013105)
°FUCK:^R ELLIS LLP
950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100
Cleveland, OH 44113
Tel: (513) 977-8200
Fax: (513) 977-8141
mlchael haw1^^^s@dlns^orgeom
faith.wh^^ta1^er P-dinsmore,com
Tel; 216.592,5000
pax, 21&592.5009
susan.au^^ ^^^ker 11` .^csrn
_1ct_ori^ ^ance_@tuckerelllscM
(Counsel of Record)
Attorneysfbr^ ^efea^^^nts-AppellanL,^ Hospice Atterneysfor .^efendantns4.p,p^^iontBrookr^^^^
ofSouthw^^t Ohio6 Inc, andfoseph Killian Senior ^ivrrkq, Inc.
27
^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^
A copy of the foregoing was served on May 12, 2014 per S.Ct.Prac.R. 3o11(B) by
mailing it by LJna^ed States ma1l and electronically by e-mail to:
Robert A. Klir€gler At^^^^^yf^rAp,^^^^^elCross-Appellant
Brian J. Butier•
ROBER`1` A. KLINGLER Co., L.P.A.
525 Vine Street, Suite 2320
Cincinnati, OH 45202a3133
--- ----------- -------.--One of the Attor^^^sforAppellantsICrossAppellees
012954.000003.1952187.1
28
APPENDIX
aY ^in
^4'y5
.^.ry ^1 ^^
Noa
^o
1 ^
I. the Supreme Co'^^^^ ^^
APPEAL P'ROM THE ^^URT OF ,^^PE-ALS
F&RsT APPELLATE D ism:ica'
HmitLTON C^^NTY, OHIO
CAsE No. C 120822
PATRICIA IJULSMEYERF
^^' $ s* v t^
P^^^^tfff^Appelleef
V.
%`.ns.;^ €R;
s^^.iF i+.S,.saY^ E•Si^Lf.1'S,% `r^"^ ^TF^Si/^
HOSPICE OF SOUTH 'W^ST OHIO, INC:^ et al.a
^eftn.dap'^^Ap^^^^^^ ts,
.
__,._____„..^..I.........
JOINT NOTICE OF CERTIFIED CONFLICT OF APPELLANTS
HOSPICE OF SOUTHWEST OHIO, I.NCo, JOSEPH ^^^LIAN, AND
BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVINGF INCY
__...._.^_______._„____________________
^_^^.„'J.fJ^J^'ll/_'/.:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^ ^^i^^^:^^i:/::%:,,,,^^:5::::^ ^l^J^_•___•_____.^.^__^_......._„_........i^^____............,,,,,,.____.^_^______.__>....^,^^».___••____•_•____________.
Michael W. Hawkins (0012.707)
(Cotti-^^^^ of Record)
Faith C. Whittaker ^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^OR^ ^ SHOHL LLP
25S East Fifth Streetx: Suite 1900
Cinca^iiati, OH 45202
Tel:. ^513^ 977M9200
^^^ (513) 977^8141
mi.cLia.eI.eha^kLns-@di^n.s^mor^^^orn
fait,WitLqker@dinsmgre,cc^^
Susan M. Au.dey (0062818)
(Counsel of Record) 'Vi^to:^ia L. Vance ^0013105^
TUCKER ^^^^^ LLP
950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100
Cleveland, OR. 44113-72.13
TeL (2161592w 5000 Fax; 16) 592h5009
,5 u s a n. a €j de y@ t Li c k e ral^^^ ^
^c Lo r ia .^^ ^ tvc k e r e I I ! s, ^
^^tarrieysfbrAppe'^latz^5,Hospzce. of
.a^dfo.^^^h Killian
PV'°FV
, WR M
^^^^^^^^^^rA^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^dole
Senior Living, inc,
M^T -1, 8 2013
r1FRK OF C OU RT
p.y
.^p
^ppy^Yyq.
{yri^^S ^:.1':^ ^fN^^tliF.,M pN^0.tlII2iSN
Appxe 1
Joint Notice of Certified Confli ^'
Under S>Ct^racxR. 8'.0 1 (A)a A}^^^^^latit.^ Hospice of ^outhwest Ohio, Tric., Joseph
Kiii^an, a-nd k^^^^^da^^^ Senior Living, inc.b ^^intly give notice of a cex°tifled conflict to
the Supreme Co-Ltrt of Ohio from the decision of the ^amilton Coun'^ Court cFf
Appeals, First A^^^^late. District, enter-.^^ in. case number C91208^2 on September
25, 2013,. where the First District re-cogiiized th-at.its^ judgment ^^nfl^^^d with the
judgrnent of -ttie Eighth ikppelI^^^ District in .^^^^a?n-Brenttet° v. Grande Point Health
Cc^^e Commun^^^ 8th D.^st. No, 74835, 2000 WL 968790 (July 13, 2000)z and
thereafter certified. the following issue -und^r Article IV,. ^ecti€^ii 3(.^)(4.) of the Ohio
Constitution for review and fina1 det^^^^^na^iono
Must an ^in^lolye.^ or another individual used by the
person or government entity to perform any w€^^^^ or
services make a report or indicate an intention to report
suspected. abuse or neglect of a nursing ho-me resident to the Ohio Director of Flealtli to state -a claim for retaliation
under R.C. 3721,24(A)?
Hulsmeyer v. Hos,^^^^ of Southwest Ohio, Inco, l^t D^^^. No. Cv1.20822, 2012-Ohio-
4147s 132,
As required by S.aWraceR. 8091^B), a copy of the First Appellate D:^stracC^
conflicting jtad.g'me.^^ in .^^^^^^^^^^ and its ^^^^rporated certification order is
2^
Appxm 2
attached as ^^^^^^t A; a ^^^^ of the Eighth App^^late "District'g j^dgab.ent in Arsh'ama
Bren-ner is attached as Exhibli B,
Respect-fuliy submitted,
- ----Wer cons.^^t
iMi^^^^l W. H'awkins (0012707).
(^ ^un^^^ ^f Record)
Faith.:C. Whittaker (0082486)
D,^^SMORE& SHOHL LLP
25.5 East Fifth Street, Saii^e 1900
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Tel: (513) 977-8200
Fax: (513) 977m8141
michael.hawkixa. Od€nsiii
faith.^hiLt r €^^insmor . com
Susan M. Audey (0062818)
(Counsel of Record) ,
Victoria L. V^ii^^ (001310.5)
TUCHR ELLIS LLP
950 Main Avenue, Sa^^te 1100
Cleveland, OH 44113
Tek 216e^91^^^^0
Fa& 216,592.R^009
saii.^^^^^^^tuc^^^^^^li's.com
Attorne,^sforAppel1^^^ ^^^^^^p, of
S^^^^^^^^ Ohio, Inc. andJ^^eph Killian
AttorneysjbrAppellant.^^ookdaie
Senior Living, Inc.
.3
Appxm 3
.^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^
A copy of the foregoing was served on October ^^ 2013 by United States
niail per App,Re 13^^^^3^ to:
RsabertA. Klzngler
Brian 1. Butler
ROBERTA^ KLINGL,E]t Co. ➢ .L.PrA^
525 Vine Street, Suite 2320
Cincinnati, OH 45202^3133
^^e of the Attarmy.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
4
012954.000003.1819681.1
Appx. 4
EXHIBI T A
Appx. S
IN ^^^^ COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST "^ ^^^^^ ^^^TRI.^^ OF OHIO
rE ?FE R ED
SEP 25 2013
^^ ^^^^^ COUNTY, OHIO
PATRICIA ^^^MUER.R
APPEAL NOo C-12082.2
TRIALN0.. A- 1^01,'^^
^^^intiff-AppelI.antj
vs,
^^^^^^^^^RY.
IIOSPICE OF SOUTHWEST OH10,
INC^k .
J^^^^^ ^^LLAN9
aiid
I^IIII^^III^
BROOKDALF, SENIOR LBqNG5 INC,9
Defex€^^^^s-A^^eUees,
This cause w^^ heard upon the appeal, the ^^^^^^^^ the b^^ef^8. and argumentse
The ju^^^^^^ of the trial court ^^ affirmed in partx reversed in part, and cause
^^manded for the ^^^^^^ set forth in the Opinion filed -this date,.
F^rth^^^ the court holds :^^^^ there were ^on^^legrounds for this appeal, allows
no penalty and ^rd^^^^ ^^^^ ^sts are taxed under App. R. 24.
The Court further orders that 1) a copy ^f this Judgment with a copy of the Opinion
attached constitutes the mandate, and .9-) the ^anda^^ be sent to txe, tr^^ court for ^^ecution
under App. R. 27.
To thie clerk:
^^er upa^^
k
By9
al a^f the co-^^ ^^ ^^^^^mb.er-25x ,^oi3 p.er order o^^^ courtd
.
.^resx^.^.^ ^ ^^
Appxx 6
.^
IN THE COURT ^^ APPEALS
FIRST ^^^^^^A-TE DISTRICT OF OHIO
^ ^ ^^^^^ COUNTY, OHIO
PATRICIA ^^^^^^^F,
Pta^ntiff^App^^lant,
VSa
^N'TER_E"
SEP 2s 2 013
APPEAL NO. C-120822
TRIAL NO. Awi^^i,578
^^^^^^^
H-OSPT^E OF SO'UTHWEST OHIO$
JOSEPH ^LLIANg
• PRESENTED TO T^^ CLERK
OF COURTS FOR FILING
and
SE P 2 5 Z'013
BROOKDALE SENIOR L.Id'INGx INC.8
^efendantswA^^^^^^^^
COURT OF APPEALS
Civzl Appeal Frome Hamilton County Court of-Com,r^^n Pl^a's
Judgment Appealed k^^om Is: Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part, and Cause
Remanded
Date of Judgment Entz^ on Ap^ea^^ ^^^^^inber 25,2013
Robert A, .^^^^^^er Co. LYAa, Robert A. Klin^^^r and Bra^^ j. ButIers for ^^ain ^^ffAppellanty
.^insa^^^^ & Shohly 41Y„ Michael Hawkins and Fdifih I^enhath, for Defendantsw
A^^ellees Hosp€Ce. €^^^^uthwe.^^ ^^iog Inc., and Joseph KilIkmx
^^^^^ Ellis & West LLZ Wdoyia Vance and Su.san M. Audey for ^^^endantAppellee ^roakdal^ Senior Uv&r^^g Inc9^
^^^zu^^ ^^^km^^ aiid Ohio Df'sabiliip .^^^ts Law and Policy ^^^^er, jn.c,., f6,r
Amx^^^ Curiae I^^sability Rights O,^io,
AppxQ 7
t--N I ERED
OHIO' FRRST DCSTRU€;^ COURT OVANTEA€S
^^^ ^^^^
AARP Foundatio^ ^iti^atiori, Kelly Bagby, .,^^^mberly Bea^^^^ ^ and Agtsan .^^lbX for
Amz^^^ Curiae A.,RP.
PleaMe note9 ^^^sc^as^ ^^^ ^^e'n removed from. tfi-e accelerated calendaro
2
Appx. 8
O.^^o F^Rsrr ^^STRICT Co'RT ^r7 APPEALS
RE
SEP 25. 2013
Per Curiam.
^1(11. ^lain^ff-ap^^^^ant P^^^ia Hulsmeyer a^^^^^^ thetriaI cour'^Jur^^^^^t
dismissing ^^^ claims f€^^ ^^^^^^^oll under ReC 3721.24. and foa^ ^^^^^ discharge in
^^^^^^^^ of pa:€^^^^^ ^liq against ^^^end^nts9ap^pelices, her former employer, Hospi^^^^
^^uth^^est Ohio, lac, ("Ho^^ice"), its CEO, 4^^^^ph Killian, and Brookdale ^enao.^ Lhing,
1-neo ("BzoAdile"), a Cor^^ratior^ that operated a ^^^^ ^erm.. and resz^ePtial. caz^e. facHaty
where Hospice pr^^^^^eduenices.
1'^2^ Because Hu^smeyer need not ^^port su^^^^ed abuse or neglect of a
nursing. home resident to the Ohio 13ikector of Health fia sta^e a ^lai;€rt for ^^taIiatiou
under R.C. ^72i,24:, we mver^^^ that part o^' #:lie trial courtfs ,^^dgmept dismissing her
retaliation 61ai^ under R.C. 3721,24 against Hw;picexRil^ian'„ and Bror^^^le: We,.a^rrn
however, the dismissal o^ ^^^ clahn ag^inst Hospice for vv^ngffil discharge in ^^^latian
of pub^^^ ^^icy bemuse-R,Ci* 57.21.24 provides- Hulsme,^^ ^^^ ^^ adequatereme.dy>
Hutst^ayet";^ Complair^^
^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ ^s.a registered nu^^. She formerly ser^ed as ^ team manager
for Ho,^^^^ Her duties ^ndu^^d oveaseea^^ the care of flospicey^ patients who ^^-mided
at one of Brookdale's faciliiie ^ ^n Cincinnati, and supe'm'sing other Hospice nurses who
provided care to those residents. ^ October ig, ^oir, dt^^^ng^ ^^^en^ ^^ meeting of
Hosp.id^ employees in which Huismeyer participated, a Hospice ^iuz°^^ in:^^^^^d that one
of Hosplce'^5 ;^aVi^^^^^ at ^rookdzle had s€^^^red'som.^ bruising, which she feared was the,
result of abuse or ^egl^a at the hands of Brookdale. ^aff. A second Hospice employee,
^n aide, had taken photo,^^^i-9 of the ^^^^^^s at the patient's request, which she sl^crwed
to th^^^ in attendance, Three Hospice employees, wh^ were ^^^^^t e, the meeting,
znf^^^ned .^^^^^^^^^^ that ^^e was obligated to cau Brookda1.e aad the patient's family
^^^^dia^e4r to report the suspected abuse or neg1ect,
3
Appx. 9
0,Hxo.^^^ST ^^^TRICI• CQU].°rOx^ ^PAALS I SEP 25,2013
{114} z^^^smw^er imm^^iatel^ cafled the Director of Nursing at ^^ookdalex
Cynth^^ ^^aunagle,. to report ber suspicions of ^^^se.. or neglect. Sp^unAgle said that she
would Wxe aH appropriate measu.res, inciudin,^ con^^ct-ing. the ^^^^^^ies d.aught^^ after
,)rdermg an examiz^^tio.^ of.^he"injurieso Hulsmeyer then reported ^^ suspected abuse
to her owm supemspr, Hospice5^ Chief Ct.^^caI Office Is,^^^ ^^^^lah; but AbMla^ did
n^t app^^^ to ^ake:^e report ser%ously. Finally, Hu^^^^^^ called the patient's daughter,
who -^", s. also the ^^^^nfs p^^^^^ of attorney, reported the suspected abusek and
informed her tba^ ^^au^^ewouldbe coaitac.ingbor. 'ThefoR^^^^ day I^^^meyer
submi^^^ a written report to Ab^^^lah c-oa^^tn'.ng the suspected ab iise or neglect ^^ ^^^
patient.
^^^^ On OLtober 24, P-^iik the ^atie^.-^3^ ^aiqghter contacted Hu^^^^^^r and
left a Vs^^^e message stating that ^^^^^^^^ ^ad not yet contacted heri °Tater that san-le
day, the ^atien6s dau,^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Hiiism^^- and ^nforr^^ ^^r that, she had called
^^a Hechtr ^^ E xecutive Director of Brooldaley seeking ^nfc^^^atiorz -a^out her mothees
i^juriies, Hechk had nat heud about. the injuri ^^ ^^ .Rulsmeyer'^ suspicions of ^^^^ or
beg^ect-s but she toJd the pat^ene^ daughter that sh^,would lfx)k- into the matter, On
November 4, 2MI, a meeting Was held at B100^^^^^ to discuss the patient's care4
Numerous Brookdale and Hospice employees were pr'esei;ty ng
Well as &,e patieiit'^ son aDd daughter.
(116) On November ii, ^oiix HuIsmey^^ began a pIann^^ leave of absance to
tmdexgo a medical proce€lure and Was nO^ to return to -w^^k until. Nyovember 28, 2011•
Dur1ng. HLflsmeyer°^ leave of absence, Jackie Lippert, Regional H#al#h and WeUnegs
Director for Bawk.dale, contac1ed ^^^^^^^e a.^d der-vz^^ded to^^ow wh^ 1iad inf^atrned
the patient's daughter ^^^^^ suspected abuse or neglect. During the telephone call, Ms,
4
Appx. 10
O^IO FIRST DISTR1C'^ COURT w APIA.FA L9.
ENTERED
705725. 2013
Lip^^ stated, 'We got xi:d of our problem (Spaunagle], w . h^^ ^re, you ^^inl^ to do?
^^^^k-riale bas^ ^^^inated
171 On Nmem^er 28,Hulsineyer°s.fiz°^t day back- atmr^rk folla^vin^^^
leave of ^^^^^^^ ^^^ul^ah asked Hul^meyer to join her in ^ier office. Betty Barnett,
^^^^i&s C00a a^^ Director of Huniarz Resources, w^s also i^°4 Abdullahg^ office, T bey
c-x;^^^^ed to Hu1^^ey^r ihat ^ey^^^ ha^^ to cag lip^erko Llppert,^,vas irate. skie stated
that th^^pataent'^ daughter had told. her that she would not recommend Bro6kdale to
anyoneo She accused Hu1^^^ey^^ of making Bror^^^^^^.^. ^^^^ bad".and x^s-fi€rir^^ up
problems." Afte.^ ^^^^^^t asked what should have been done diftexentlyP Lippert
snapped, "fh.e family shoa^^d not have been w1^^^ an^ the photographs 8houl.d aasathave
been ^^^em^ ^^nallyA. Uppert th.^^^^ent:d tha^ Brookdale -,a+^^ld cease recommending
Hospice to its residents.
(181 T^o- days later, ^amett M1e€^ ^^^stney^r i,nto tac-,^ office and. infc^^ed
her that ^^e would be ^erininatedo ^akeit aback by the terminatio^^, Hulsmeyer
attemPted to meet with Xilliara, but Bamet^ ^nf^^^^ Hulsmeyer that KM$^^ had
a^^^ted Barnett to ^cqt ties' watti Hulsmeyer and that he "[didn't^ 'wa^t to be
"s^^^^^ed vn'th herxr because he "[didnt] have ^^e."
M^^ On No^^^^^r .30, 201j., ul a letter signed by MUa^ and Abduflah^
^^^^^^^ informed HWsme,^^r that shewas termznatedti In the letter, 1=l^'^.spi^^ stated
that ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^ not ^^^^.,^ ha^^^^^ ^^spice's `s^an^^^enxF" about: the suspected
abuse, erit€cized her for notifying ^i-l^ ^aticne^ daughter about the susp^^efi abusef and
^ ^^^d Hospice's "uF^^r managez^.^nt". had not leamet! about the Wspected :^^use until
^^^rt h^^^ contacted Abdul1ah, som^^^^^ after iNo^^^^^r 11A ^ori, The termination
letter also -specifica^:y aden:taffed the fact that Hulsmeyer had ^ontacted. the ^atient'8
daughter asji€^^irication for her termiratio^..
5
Appx. 11
OHIO FIRS'1` DYsTRICT COi.}Itf ^^^ APP^':Al ^ ^ ^^^ ^ ^
e
^^P'25' 201,uD
^^^^^^ On Februa7 28, 2012, Hulsme^^r filed suit against Brr^6kd^^^,
and Killi^^^ She alleged that Brookdales Hospice, and MEian had ^^ngfull-y
terminated her employment in^^^aIat%^^ of K^`. 37 ^:^..^. ^`a^° reportat^g s^p^ed1^
^^^se
and. negl^^^ cif a nursing home resideut. She ^^s6 ^^^ertu,d a claim. a'gm'rast Hospice -for
wrongH disck^arge, i^A violadorn of public ^^^^^Y and. a ^^ira against Brookdale fc^r,
toTt.iou^ in^erfexe^^ with a business relationship. ^Q.9pice, Nl1i€^, wid ^rooicdale
maved pursuant to Civ.& =(B)(6) to dismiss all of ^^^^^eyees ^^^^^^ ^g-4znst. dhem.
The trial court dismissed all of :^lu^^^eyerss.clas^^ without ^vqjudice except ^^^^ ^^^itn
for ^^^^^ ^nterfer^^^e with a busRness relationship again^ Brr^okdale. After
coraducting 1iiriited: discovery, ^^ulsr^^^er dismissed with prejudice her rem^illix^g clai'M
a^^nst Brc^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^ this ap, peal,
^^^^^^^^^^^
BrookU^ -ar,^ues that dhis: court lacks jurisdiction over ^^^smey^^_5
^^peA It asserts dhat flulsan^^er is not appealing ftom a final appealable order because
the ^tria1 couat- disinissed her pubIic. poIicyand retaIlation claims without. p^^dice S6e
Civ,R4. 40.^(A. sed also NatL CYtti Cornnaemiat Ca^^^l Corpo v, .^^^ at Your Sejaa.,
.^^tc., ':^14 Oh:z^ St.,^d. 82„ 2007^^^^.^9^2^ 868 NEe2d 66^, 1 ^e ^ ^xd^r ^d^ a
mo.tion to dismiss for failure to ^^e a claim, however, even. if exprmsly dismi ssed
"idloa^t prejudice, may be final and appealable if tb. ^ plaintiff cannot plead the claims
any differently to ^tate a claim for ^lief, See George v. State, -tod'a ^ist Franklin Nos,
iMP-4. and wAP--97s ^,^01040h!'O-5262r 1 13Y citing Eletcher v4 UnivR ,^egp.^. of
Cleveland, i2o Ohio St.3d 167, 2008-0hio-,53793 897 N.E,2d 147, T i7. Here; the irial
coure^ ^^^^^^^ of ^ulsmeYer°s P€^bli^ ^^icY and XttaEad^ ^^^^s was based up^n. I^^
conclusion that they failed as a matter of law.
6
Appx. 12
OH.IO FYR.Tr DISTRX-'r C4"3vxr oF ^^EAI..^
)
^^^^^^^
^^^^ ^^^^
(^12.) The, trAa1 court fieldthat Hulstneyer could not ^^^ a claim for ^eWlatiog-i
be^^e RwC 3721e24 Prr^^^cts :a nti^^^^g home emp^oy^e fiom retalaal€on only for
reporting or intending ro report suspected abuse or neglect of a resident to the Ohio
Director of Health and that Flulsmeyea° had failed to allege that she had ^^p'orted or
intended ^^ report the susp^^d abuse and neglect to the Ohio Director af ^^althe I^
further held that Ohib publlc'pol1cy would not be jeopardi^ed.W. nursing ho^ae employees
are terminated for reporting abu^^- or neglect because R.C, 372L'24 aff€^^ ^^^^ an
^^equate'remedy.
1,113) Notwithstanding the trial courts n^ta^bn that it was &mls,sing ^.e
claims without prejudice, no further alle,^atic^^ or statements ^^^facts consistent with
the pleadings could cure the: defect to these clalw. Unless HuIsrr^^^^ were to ha-ve
d^SSvPw^ her pria^^ ^^^^emeiit that she had not made a report ^^ ^^ Ohio ^rector of
Health, 'wl"iich would have been inconsistent ^vith the allegations ln her present
cornplaaxit, the trial, wurta^ conclusion with respect to her retaliation clal-m ^^Wd bave
been miat^erabi.e. ^^rnflarlyi even if ^^^sn^eyer were to c1i an,^^ the facts ^f her
ComplairItz ^er publlc. pol1€ ^ claa^a woti1ti. s^l fail as a .^:^.^k^ of law ^r^ed. upon the ^^
court}^ conclusion that she could nr^^ ^^^fy the jeopardy element of the cl^^^ because
R.C. 37`'^-1.24 had. provided her Nvit&a an adequate mmedy. Recause fi:he-rf-, woula" be rit^
possible ^`^a^tual ^^^ario under which she wuld :^^^ a d^^^ ^^r retaliation ih V-1,0lat^^^
of RvC. 3721-24 and for wre^ngful discharge ln violation of public policy9 the ^rial courfs
d€smlssal. of h^^ clafms, was in fk^ ^^ adjudication of themer-ats. of tiaose claiins. See
State ex re1. Ai°ea.^^^ Acres v. 01do Dept. of Job & Famit^ ^^rvsr9 i23 OhiO k^^ 54,
2009--01116-^^76y %4 NZ2d i7o9 ^ 15. We, therefore, eonclude that we hav^jurisdzcti:^^
to ^^^^rtaixi h.ea^ ^ppeare
7
Appx. 13
^^^^^^sTD15CRICT COURT^r, A, PPEr^^ ^^^ERED
^^ ^^^^
Standard of Review
11141 In ^^o assignments of e.rroi, Hulsyneyer argues ^hatthe'tria^ court
erred in dism. issan,g her retaliation and. public p61i^y ci.aims. ^br i':iilur^ to state a claim
und^r CivrR. ^^(B)(6). VJe r^^^ew dismiss,^^ by the. trial co*urt under CivaR. ^^(,B)(6)
un&r a de .no^.te standard of r^eviww. .^era^sburp 7wp. v. Ro^sfbrd, io3 Ohio St,3d
79, 2oo4-0hiO-4362.s 814' NX,2d 44, 15. In dr:tu^^iyig the appropriateness of a
d^gmissaXB we, like the trial ^ourtr are constrained to take the a^ega.^on^ in the
complaint as true, draw^g all reasonable inferences in the plai.nfi^s favor, a^id ^^^eii
to .d.ecide if the Oain^^ff has ^^^^^^ ^ny basis for relief. Mitchell u, Law,^^^ jvf^^k Cb.x
40 Ohio St,3d 1,90, 1%!, 532 N,E:^d 7,53 (xqSB). A di^iirizssai sl^ould be granted only if
tl'ie plafn-tiff can plead no set of facts that -wouid entitle it torelief. Of^z^en, V. TIniv.
Coynmun^^^ ^enar^^s Union, jnQr9 42 Ob.io St.2d 242s^^^^ ^.&Z4 753 (1975), -SYi1abUs4
Reta3i^^^on ClaFm under RX, 3721:24
^^^^^ In her -first assignment of error, Hulsmeyer argues the tri'al court
erred in dismis.5in,^ her claim for.^tafli:ation und^,,r RZ; 3721-24e
M1^^^ The trial, court held that R.C. ;^7^4-1q24.OnlY PrOtect^ emplr^^eez f-rom
retaliation who' report o.r, ititetad- to reprart abuse or neglect to thc; Ohio Director of
Health. .^^cause .^^l,^,meyex had not alleged that ^^^ had. re^^^ed, or in.^ended to
.repprt the suspected abuse to the Dar^ec^orof Health, shi^ could nots4^^^ a claim for
relief under P.f ^^ 379-1.24, In reaching this cornclusi.on^ the trial court relied upon tIi -e
Eiglith Appellate Dastrir-es decision in Arshwn9Brerar^e-e ^^ ^rande Point Health Caa^^
-Comm,k 8th Dist..'Cuya^oga No. 748357 2oor^ ^^^a App.. LEWIS 3.164 (J4ly 13s Pooa),
and an unrepor^^ oph^^o.ra from the Sixth. Circuit, Davrs vaMarriott 17iterraad.p lne,y
6th Cir. Nc8^ 04w4'156, -2005 U.^ App. LEXIS 2^789 ^OCt. 4, 200^^, which had
fol1owed.Ar-s^^am-Brenners
^
^^^^. 1.4
--------------
01-110 Fi^'°'.^' I3ismicT ^OURT Or^ APPFAX„^.^
^^^^^^^
_-K7^ ^^ ^01^
[Tlj7) In Arslzum-Brenner, the Eighth District held that the pra^^^cdons
of ReC, 3721.24 apply t^^ly. wh6ra an ^^^^oyer^^^^^^^ that- an individual has reported
abuse or neglect to the Olg^^ ^I'Vector of ^ealthY and. thereafter retaliates against that
individual for ma^^^ig such. A report to the ^^^^cy< Ar,^hc-m^^^^^^r a^ ^21. `Fhe cou €-t
reached this con^lusion. -by .readixag R.C. 9721.24 together -wi^h R.C. 3721-22 and
V.2L23.
ThO C-Ol€yt noted that "fujnder RX, 372^^22(A)y^ a fi^ensed ^^lth-
Pr^^essior^al is ob1igated to repott: suspected a^^si- or .^eg lect `^^ the di;^ec^^^ of
^eal&' Sections B ahd C describe-voIuratary reporting to the `directa.r ofhezlth." `T^lfx
intervening ^tat€;^^^, R.C. 872L23, refers to the €^-a^^^^ of the director° of hp-aith to
investigate a:^^egations;x' The court noted ^^^^ by `(r1eadirag. these statutes to,^ethers
we ^0fieve that Rto 372.i.24 forbids ret^^^at^^^ ^^ir r^portsR whether obligatory or
.
voluntary, mad.-P only to the director of heqlt^ ^^^^^^i t-6 K^^ 3721^22. Any reports
to ot.^er^^ ^^ch as to a^^^^l.anes ernpl^y&,, of suspected ^eAdent.^buse or ^^^^ect.x do
not,q.uAlify for protection :under R.Ce 3.^21.24W." idq
1118) Similarly, 4i Daeis v. Marraott Ir^^ernaff, Inat the Sixth Circuit
rejected an ^^^loyee"s 'ctai^ that ^^^^ort of s^^^^^ ^ed abuse to her superv€.^^^^
satisfied R.C. 3791o24. It stated that the ^^ght^ District's interpretation . of the statutein ArshammBr^nner was far from unreasonablez gi^^^ that the Ohio Supreme C'^-,
had held that ' d^^^ statutes ^^^^ relate to the same general subject ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ be
read in para materia"g ati.d. that it "h^(d] lsr^iious^^ ^orzstru.0 W^^stlebla=wo.r statutes
n-arrowly," .^ava ^ at *8, quoting Oarn-es v. Kemp, .t^^ Ohio St,3^ 6V_.9, 2004-ohio71.07r. ^21 N.E,2d i8ox $ i69 and citing.KvIt.h ue Stmct.€r^l Fibers, Inc., 78 Ohio Stt3d
134, 677 N,E.^^ 308 (1997.), As a result, the 8ixth Cixcui^ f6:^^^^d.Arsham-Ha°^^lnerx
b,6a€^ the ^ta^^^^^ together, and held that the employee's complaint had failed to sta:^^
9
Appxs 15
OnIo FZRsT ^isT^crr ^ouRT ^F APPLzAi,^
a claixn for ^^^^^ia^ory discharge under RX, 372.1,24 because she had -not
ENTERED
^EP ^^^ ^^^^^
ed that
she had made or intended to ma^^e' a report to ^e di^^^^^^ of ^^^lth.. Davis at *9.
('1^9j ITulsmey^r argues, t Iia^ the teia^ couxtb. as'well. :^^ thp. Arsizaritn
Brena^er and Davis :cr^urtsg erred by reading R,Ct 3721<24 ^n p'ari inateria with R.C.
3711.22 and :3721o23o She argues that under ttie rules of ^tatut€^^ ^anstl-Uction9 a
court must first look to the Ianguifige r^^th^ ^t-at-ute, itseIt-and because R.C.. 372i.2^4. is.
unambiguous, ^^^^^ is no ^^^^ to look to .&C, 3721.22. Or 3721.23 to a.^^^^^^^^t RC.
3721-4s 'fiospace, ^114m, and .^rookdg1e, argue, on the other hand, that this colai°^
should f^^low the. interpretation of RoC. ^79-1.24 sOt fbrth in ArshammB;^^^^^^^ and
Da-viso They argue that because RsC, 3721122: and 3721624 relate to the sain^ subject
.^attermmr^^orting. resident abuse and ^^^^eammthat th^y.mu^ be construed together
and be read in pari aiiateriao
JT^^) The interpretation of a statute is a. matter of lawv tha^ an app^^la^^
^OUA reviews under a ^^ ^^^^^ standard of review a Akrur^ ^erttre Pdouzr,: LaLL, v.
Sur^^^^^t Cty. B& of Revisz^^^ i_^>B Ohio St3d 145, 2010--OMO-50359 942 M.E2d i€.^54s
1110. Th^ Ohio Sa^pr^nie. C'ourt, has hf-1d that in anterpretin^ a ^tatuteF: a cou.rt must
first look to the language of the statute ^^^^lf^' .^^^ ^^^^^^er u: Freight Haradler.s, 1hea,
131 Ohio St,.^^ 3,16x 2'0i2-0^iG'w$80p 964 NoE.9-d i.oSoP T, 16, jv^rds. used. ^^ a ^^^^^^^
'mus&: be ^^ad ^^ eo^^ext and a^co'r€^^ their nor m al, usgi'ala an^ Cu^^oma^ ^^aning.
RX. 1.42. If the ^^^^^^^ in a ^tatu-te are "firee from ambiguity and doubt, and. express
plainly, ^^^^ly and distixt^tl^^ the sense €^^ th^ law--m^kiog body, there is no ^^^^^ion
to resort to other ^^^^ns. of in"^erpretatgon.°" State ti., Hairston, :i0i Ohio St,,,d 308s
2004wOhi^^969,, .904 N.^.2d 01, '1^ :L^ quoti^g^ Stin,^hiff v. W^aver5 66 Ohio St. 621,
64 N,B0 5d^ (1902)s parag'raph two of the syflabusI "An ^^ambi^ous stattate is k€^ ^e
10
Appx. 1^°i
^^^^o FrRm•^^ST^ier Cr^^^^^^^^r^,A-Ls
JENTERED ---b 5 2013
^_____
appIle , not i^zte^~^sreted." Sears ^^e W^inl^°p 143 Q^^10 8t, 3^2> 5^ N,;2d 1 3 (a 9441y
^^^agrap^ f Ive 6r t^e;vl.labus,
jjf21j "It as. only i.^,her^ the words of a statute. are a^^i'mmus; are b^sp-d
u-^oia an Unc^^^ain meaning, or, if there. is an apparent conflict of some provisions.8:
that a ^ourt has the right t6interpret a statute." Brooks v, ^^^^^ State Utifv.a m Ol^io
App•3d 342,340, 676 NU>^d 162 (iot1^ ^^su996)b A statute ^s am^^^^ou^ ^^ere its
la.^guage iS staseep:tib.le of more. t.han one reasonable 1nterpretat^on, In re Baby Boy.
Brooks, 136 Ohio APP,3d 824, 829, 737.NXF2-€1 ^oW (i.€^^^ ^^^tm-ao), " ^^ell a
statut^ is subjer;t to more than one ^^^^^pretatiori, ^^urts. seek t6 afitel°pret the
stat^ito.^ provision in a mar^^or that most xmdlty fui~t^^^s the legislative purpose as
reflected in the wording used. in t1^^ ^^^^^^atione " At&T ^'oni8nuiaz^ations of Ohio,
l-ne, v'. Lyndh, 132 Ohio St.3d. 92, 2012-0hioµi975a 969 Mk2d. 1166^ 118, qta^^^^g
St^^e ex ret. Toledo Edison C^-^1 ue CIYAa 76 OhiO St43d 508R ^^^^ 668 M&ad 498,
(1996). In int.^^preti"ng an ambiguous statute$: a court may inquire into the legislative
in:tent .behitid the statute, its legislative history, public policy, l^^^^ on the sam C. ^:r
similar s0jects-, the consequences of a particular i^^erpretation,: or any oLher factor
identified in lt.C, 1r49. See Totedo Edison, 76 Ohio StQ3d at 513^514^ 668 X&P-d 498o
riurth'ormorey .when 1^^^^^^^etiag,,,t statute; ^^art>.^ n3^st ay®id uxta•^a'sonable, or :ahsurd
result& S^^^^ ^x'ret. Asti v, Ohio ^ept, O,^ YO^^^ ^eFus.x 107,Oblo -St,,^d 2.62g 2oo.^_
Oh1o-£43:2D ^3-8 N'oEa2d 658, '1128,
fIff22) R.C. 3721.24.15rovides in pertlnent pak-,,s
^^^ No -person or government entity shW1 retaliate aga1iist an
ea^^^^^^^ or ^^^^^^^ individual used by the person or government
entity. t^ perform ^^^ ^orla or ^rv.€^^es wliox in good fa1.th, ma^.^s a
report of suspected. abuse or neglect of a resident or
it
App^. 17
OMO FIRST D-IS'^^ICT COURT Or^ .e'^PPEAI^ ^^TERED
misappropriation of the property of a resident; L-idzca^^^ -an
iii^ention .to make such a reportx ^^^^des -infor^^.ation durang aft
anv^^^ig^tion of suspec'^ ^buse,. neglect, or r-iisapgropriatioln
conducted by ^hci. director -of health; or partici.^^^^^ in a hearing
cons^^^^od urider sectiOn 3721.23 of ^e Revised ^^de. or in anyoth.^^ administrative or judicia X pr^^eed^^^^ pertaining to the
sus'p^^^^d -abust8 neglectk or misappro.^^^-ation, For ^^^^^^s of
this divisi^^^ retaliatory actions ^n&de d€^^hargi.^^^ ^^^^^ting3 or^
tra^^^trri'ng. the employee or other ,^erson8 preparing a negafll,^e
work pe.rf6rmance evaluation of the employee or other person,
reducing the benefits, pay, or work pa^^^^^eges- of the employee or
other ,^^^^^^ and any other action i.^^^eria^ed to.rpfA^^^^^ against the
employee or other person.
112 3} After ^ea^^^g th-e st^tute,. we agree wi.th tIu^gme,^^ that the pla.'rn
1^^^ua-g-e of R.^^ 3721.24(A) forbids retaliation "agair^^^ on employee ar atiother
indi-Odua^ used by the pc-rson. or government entity to ^^^^^^ an^ ^^^rk or se r^^^^
wbo, in good_ faithx makes or indicates an in^en^^^ to -M
ke a report o^ ^^^^^^ed
abuse or neglect of a resideiii Th-e statut^ provides pr^^ectfo:^ for ar^y rep. orts
of suspected a^^^^^ and neglect that are made ot a^^ended to be. rfta0eY not *a^^^ th^se,
reports that a re made. or inte n€^^^ to be made to tJ ze Director of Heaith.
J1241 Had the legislature z^^int to li^it the protection affarded to. only
reports of ^^^^^^^ed abuse ^^ neglect made to th:e Darectoa of Health, 's:^ could: have
easily. done so by either di.rectly ir^^^^ing the words "to the Director of Heafth"^ ^^^
the word xgteport,°" by r^^^^encang R.C. ^^2-1w22 in conjur^^^^on. 'by^.th report, or by
referring to the report mado as one. specified under R.C. Chapter o,72iL The
12
Appx. 18
Okxio FY^.`^`r DIST^ICT COURT oFAPPEAis
ENTEkED
'^ ^^^3'
, ----------legislaturek ^owevei:, did not employ these words ^^d we may not add t:hem to the
atatute. See State v. Taniguchis 74 Oli%^ St^^^ 154; ^56, 6 .56. N,L,.2d 1286 (-ig.9,5)
(hnldi:x^^ that "a court should give effect to the words actually employed in a ^^^^^^
and should not delete words uae4, or insert'wor^s not used, in ^^^ goi^^ of
:iRt^rPreti^^ the statute.zIs see ^^^o Wacta^nd^if v. ^^^^erg 149 OWO St. 231, 236°37s
78 NM2d 37o (194:8)e
[1251. Remus:^ th^ ^at-ate is unambiguous and does not.1imi^ reports ^^
suspected abuse or neglect to oialy those repom made or i.^^^nded^ to be made to the
Director of Health, we ^^^ ^^^ look to.RsC 3^/21,22 and 3721o23 for assistanco in
interpretxn-g the statu.te, See State ex rel: 116rmann o, Klopfleisch, 72 Ohz^ St3d,8i'
58'5s 6^5i N.FK,2d 995 (19.95) (the flnpari xn^^eria rule may only ^f-, used in interpreting
statutes 14_her-e some doubt or a.nibiguity exiats), Because ^u-tsrAeyer nee(I not report
stas^^^^ted abuse or iiegl^ct of a niirsing home resident ^^ the Ohio Director of 1-l:ealth to
ciagan for ^etalie^tio^ under R.C ^^^:ia24, the trial cou^ erred in ^^^^^^ing her
rataliadan claim under RoC against Ha^^^c% Killian, and Brookdgle. oai this
hasis^
JJf26^ ^^^okdale- additionally ar.^ue^ ^hat liu1..mleyer's retaliataon'cl^^m
fails as ^ matter of law because ., ^^^^^° ha^ failed to alle^,rs that she was ^`use^. by"
Brookdale to p^^^rrA any ivork or se€vi^e,5. R.C. 3721.24 . provides a ca^^^ of actio-n
for an ^^rnp1oyee or another ira.da^dual. usec^ ^^ ^^^ person or government era^ity to
^^rfo^ni any work or ^ervices^ who is term'iz^^^^^ for t^portBa^^ suspected abuse and
^eglects .^^^ ^^^evdn^ the allegations in her complaint, however, we find that
1-^ulsrneyer has alleged. sufficient facts ^G withstand Brookdate"s motion to dismiss.
^^^^^ey^^ alleged that ^^^okdale used Hospice na^ses in conjunction -with its own
staff to provide pa.ti.i^nt care at its 1on,^^^erz^ care-^acility in several ways.
^^ AppxR 19
01-11:0 ^IRST Dimi£.Rc.r CouR`.r or AppEAL,.^
ENTERt ---D_
5.210 13
:grst, she alleged that she was used ^y Bre^^^^^le w oversoe t1le
care for e^Atain residents and to .^^^itor the care ^^otk^6,r niiz•ses providing.care fd^
t.hose residents.. She further alleged that she a-Iso z^^^e n^^^^ a ^^eti'ng at. Brook4ale3^
facility to ConsuIt wiffi BrodkdaWs. staff and the patie-xitx^ family to ensure ^lw- patient
wm r^^^^ving proper care.
Thm facts were sufficient to wi&§tand Br^okdale's
ni«^^^^^ to,
11281 ^ecause RX, 3721.24 doesnot limit ^epo.rt,^ of suspected abuse and
ilegiect to only those repor^^ ^^^^^ to the Ohio ^^ee-tor of Health, and because
Hulsrneyer has plr;adez^ sufficient facts to state a. claim a,^^.Jnst lI.ospi-ce, X-allian9 and.
Broo.^dale.y we sustain her first assignment of er.ror.
P14blic Policy C1aim
(1129) in her secdnd assignment of etror, H'Ulgmeyer argues that the trial
court. ur.red in da^^^^^^^g her clairri for wrongful ^^s6arge aii violation of ^ub^^^
^^^^^^ ag^inst. Hospice on the ba'si^ that ^lie had an adequate remedy avazlab^^
pu. rsuant to RZ, 3.72L24 aiid thias, co^^d not m^^^ the'jec^pardy element of her claim.
1,T,,30) In oa.Oer to state a. claim for wr^^^^l &wharge in violation of
public policy, a plaintiff must show:
(.1) That a ^^^^x^ public policy ^^^^^^ ahd was manifested in a
state; or ^edera1 con.statu#aon, statute
or adminisir^^^^
^egula, tzonx or in the commer^ law (the clarity ^^^^^ent^^ (^) That
disrnissing emplo.^^^^ under circ^^^ancea like th^^^^^ involved
iia the ^^^^^^^ffidismzssal would jeopardi^^ th^^ public po1^^
(the jeopardy element); (3). 1`h^ plaintiffs . dismissal 1,a^^
motivated by conduct ^^^^^edto the public policy (the cau^atior^
element); and (4) 'The eMpiOYet lacked overri^in^ legitimate
14
Appx. 20
^^^o FiRs`,^ ^^FrRx(;Yr Couxr or^ A^^^^^
^NTERED -S-EP 2 5 2013
business ^^^^itleratzon for the dismissal (^^e o^erriditig
element)..
Collins v. Mikanap 73 Ohio Sta.^^ ^^, 69-7o, 652 N,E,°^d 653^ ( ,L995), Ih^ first two
Oem^^^^^^the clarity el^tner^^ and the jeopardy eSea-nent-.^^^^ q'uesflons of law to 1^6
determined by ^he, ^^urt,, whil^ the third ^^d fourth ^^em^nts--^the mi^satior el^^^^^'
and the overriding business justlfica, Itlaii elemera^^ate q€^^stions of fact for the. trier
of fact; Ida
ft31), In .^^^^^l va St, Manjs IlDmex 153 Oh10 A^^^^^ 444 ^003M0hio-<
3383a 794 NZ2d 716 (ist- D1sQ thls: court follo-vved the Ob1^ supr^me ^ourk'^
dem"Si^^ ^^^ ^Pi'iles v^. Medina Aut6 ,^dr^^^ 96 Ohio St,3d 2415 ^^^^^^OhloF^^^^^ 773
N,E>2d a926< We .1^^ld that ^ecaus.e the remedies providpa^ by R.C. 3721,24 ^^^^
sufficient to virielicate the 'publlc pollev embodied in R.C. Chapter 37,21 Of pxo^^cti.^^
the ^ ^^hts of nursing-home residents: ayi€1 of others: who would report violations of
tho-qe xightsg^ the public policy ^^pr^^^ed in R.C. ^ha^^er 3721 would not be
jeopardized by the lack of ^ common-law public-policy c-lalmo Id. ^.^ 117^ ^^^^^^^
Hutsmeyer h^ a remedy by way of a cl"aim for retaliation under R^C 3721.24^ the
trial court properly €^^^^^^^^ssed her claim fo ^- wrongful d1^charge- in viol^^i.6n of public
Po4yF We-x therefore, ^^^fule her ^^ond assggiignent. of error.
^on^^^^ion
{11321 In- conclusion, we affirm ^ht, portion of the irial ^ourfs- j'Ladganent
dismi.^ing Hu1smeyer's. public poiicy clalm^ but we .^^^^^^^- that p€^^on. of l^^
^^^gm=t dimisslng Holsmeyer5s clalm for retaliation under KC, 372xw24F W^ ^
th-ere^'o^°e, remand this ^aus^^fo^° £^^kl^^ lz^oceedlngs ^a^€^s^^^^t With this opinion and
the law.: We recognize that our resolution of Flulsmeydris.^'i^^t assignment of error
conflicts with the 'Eighth D1^trl^^ Court of Appeals in Arsh.c€rn-Brenner v-. ^rarade
15
Appxm 21
Oiiio FYRsi' DISs°RIC"[" C8"3i3RT OF .E^^EALS
^^^EIR -E^Di
22 ^ ^^^3
poinfiHea^^^h Care, 8th Dist. Cuya^^ga No, 74835x 2oo^ Ohio App. LEXI^ ^164 Va^^
31.;. 2000). Web therefore; ^ertify to ^^e Supreme Court of Oliios pars^^^ to ^^^cyn
3(R)(4)3 AdRcle M Ohio Ci^^^sfitutions the £6^^^^ing i^^^^ fbr review and final
determinataow 'Must an employee ot another ffid^vi6al u^^ by the person or
^ovemm^^t mi:t^ to, perform any woxk- €^^ ^ervice,.^ rna^e a report or indicate an
intention to report suspected ^^use :or n^^^^ of a nursing hoxne ttsi^^^ to the Olzio
Da^^^^^r o^^^^lth tosta^e a ^laim.for retaliation under R.C. 372L24(A)?-"
Judga^en^ ^^^^^^ in part, reversed in,p-^^ ^nd cause remanded.
H^NDON9 PAJr$ Ci7NNT^0HA-m and RscHERg ^^^^ concuro
P1ewe note:
'^^ ^^^^ has r^^^^^ its own ^^^ this date.
16
Appxa 22
IXH lEft B
Appx. 23
Wdstl^vv.
pkge t
.Nrst:Re^.^ort6d :an NeEldls 2000 WL 968790 (OJxks Ap_9. 8 Dist.)
(Cste ass 2000 WI, 968790 (Ohao Agp^ 8 Dist.))
^^^^y t^e Wes,,taw citatio^ is currently
CkIFCK OHIO SUP.ii.E:?^E COLTRTRUL:^ S
FOR.RE:L^OXF^^ OFOPINIONSAND
WEIGHT OFLEGAL A^1^''^ORI"I'Y,
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth Dzstact,
Cuyahoga County.
Nancy ARSHAIVI-BREN^€ E P,, P Win fiff-appellant
V,
GRANIDE ^OTiNT HEALTH CARE
^OMN"ITY, et al., ^^^^i-idasats-a^^^^^^s
iNb, 74835.
July 13, 20ft
Cbmacter of Pzocwdinga Ci-v-^l appeal from
Common Pleas C€^^ ^^e N'O.. CVm3155.06.
Aff^t-ned.,
KeEnqtk __ D: Esq.o ^^e-veland, f'or
plaintiff-appellant.
N%mhe^b-i-n, Satullo., Esq.; !,_gjg M. Suzl^van4
Esq.^ ^^^iiriger & Reniinger, Cleve(and, for
defendants- appe1lees.
JOURNAL a;N I'RY AND 01P.INTON
.C`s.%'9d."'.6.'- 3=SKIy 3 .
*1 ^ ^^ ^^^ngfu1 dischar,^^ casep
pIaintiff=appel1^^ Nancy A^^ham--Breamer
(hereafter "app^^lanf") "1^9 that we oyerturn
-9 uUl=arf i adgment o-rd .^^ ^^nderedin . favor
of ^ef^^dant^^^^^el}^^ Grande Pointe
I-:^ealt:b: Car^ Community; Care. Services, Inc.;
Karen Fogel; md Warreii L. Wo1fsr^^ (liere^^e-r collectively xaf^^^^ to ^^ "appellees"):
Appellant maintains that factual questions
entitte 11^ to trial oti.olaua^s thather discharge
^^s actionable tinder 0hRVs`-'V&lstleb1ower
St^te' (R,Q. 4l. 13e5.2"), ^^^^ ^^^talliatoxy in
violation of R.C. 3_
72-1.:al. and was inde^end^ntly actionable &s being against 011io,
public policy; and that's:h,^ wgs def^^^dby
the appel1ees: Our review convinces us that
the appei[e^s were entitled to judgment as a
matter of law, A^co^^iagjy, the judgment. is
affig^eda
We ^^^^ from the ^^cord that ;kp^^^^^^
Grande Pointe ^^eal.th Care Coz^^i mity is the
'
n.a.me,. by which Richmond Nursing, Inc.,
does business .' ^ Cirmide Pointo operates a
licensed skilled residebfiaI and assisted ^iving
.heal^^^^e facility in ^ichmond Heights,
01^0, specializing in ^eniot citizen c-are.
:A^ppell.^^ Care Services, Inc., is a holding
^^nip any that provides Tna-aa^^^eti^ and
uPport. services to ^a-a^e Pointe. At all
relevant times, Graaide Poime°s c:t^ief .execun
tivW officer was appo8.lee- Warren WoIfsor3.
^iid its admin.€str.abor was appe11^e Karera
Fogel.
Fogel hired appellant ^anc^ Ar,
^hama^^emier as Director of 'N
^- wsi^^g on
^ 2^113 Thomson ^eutezs. No- Claifq to OaEg, lrs Gov. WgrTs.
Appx. 24
Page 2
Not Repoited in NX.2d, 2000 WL. 968790 (Olito Apts. 4 Dist.)
(Catema 2000 WL 969790 (Ohgts Appo 8 Disia))
Janiimy 29, 19-96y and ^^^ appealantss.im_
med1,ate supervisor fbx tIie d:^rati^^ of ap-.
pella.nV^ emp^^yinent.. Fogel te:-minated :appelIant`^ employment on April -3, 1996. Fogel
averred that she taaminated appellant.°s anLL
p^oymen^ because of ahr€^n-ic absenteeisma
appellant wi-, absent approximately ^ixt^en
^^d one-half days ^.^^ January and February
.1996. Fogel ^^so, cited ^^^^^lantfs lack o'f
team 'Arork as gmu.n.ds for appellant.°s term!natiom Foge1 noted that :^^^^ had. occasion to
reprimwtd appellatit on several ^^^^^^^^s for
appellant's work, pe^.°^mance at GraTide
Pointe.
Appellant, for.her part,. offered a different
perspective. She says ^h-e observed a variety
of substms.dard. €^^^c practicos that she reported to her supervisor, xn6ludin^ the fact
that a noii-a^^^^ was st^^^rvisz^g nursing
personnel. A^^^^larit ^^^ortedly. dzsoovered
n,urnerous other substandard practices which
were:not, adequately addressed. She al-leges
that s1ie spoke with Aepres.eiitatives of the
Ohio ^^^pa^ent of Health, about the conditions at Grande Pointe, alth€^^en she k-ept no
record of those contacts.
Appellee Wolfk on averred that he was
never iafonned bgr the Ohio' Department of
^Health^ or any other end.ty, that AppeI^^^t had
filed a complaint or report with. any such
entity regarding Cyrande Pointe. He added
that lie first ^tamed that appellant had filed a
comptaint or report ^onc€rninb :^^ande
Pointe w:^(^n tl-ds lawsult was filed. Appellee
Fogel similarly averred tha she: n^^^^
^earne,d ^^°rom any source that ap'peflant had
filed a. report or complaint c^^^^eniz^g
Grgnde Pointe until this iaws.ti^ was filed,
*2 Theappellees ^'trt:har offi=d evidence.
by a;^'^.^d^vift ^`a:ain l°+^ch^^^^ DeLong, t.he rec^
ords custodian respoiisi.bIe for all comp^^^^s
filed with the Ohio Departmerit o;^^lealth that
a^^^ saf^ty, ordinwic^ and/o^ ^^^platory
violations against skilled nursing ^^caIthacu-e
facilities in Ohio. A ^eardh of ^ -roomputer
database on ^^eh records of complaints are
stored disclosed "no camplaaht of any. sort
signed by Nancy ..^^^haniaBrenr^^^ with the
Oliin Npartm:ent. of flealth ai1e,^^^g the -6,»^
^lat^^^ of any safety ordinance andE'or regulation on. the part of Grande Pointe Health
C^^ Community."
Appellant ^^ed this actaor^^ against the
appellees s^nAugust 1.9.s 199& After a period
aflowed for discov^ry and m€stion practice,
thel t^iai. court gTanted the appeheese motion
for ^umnimy judgineyat oii June 3, 1.998e
Appellant argues that the ^^ erred in
granting si.^^mary judgment as to certain
cIaims,
^timnu-vy judgment is- appropriate ^^heu
(1) there is no ^^^^e issue of mate-rial fact,
(2) the moving party is. entitled. -to judgment
as a matter of ^aw, and (3) after construing
the evidence -anast favorably for the party
^^gainstwh^m the motion is rr-ades reasonable
minds can reach only a ^^oncl.uvion, that is
^ 2013 'I'ha^^so:^Reu^em No Claim
, to Orag. US Gov. Works.
Appx. 25
Pkq;e 3,
Not R^^^rWd L-i N.E.U, 2000 W1, 968790 ^'i^hio App.. 8 Dist.)
.(Cate as: 200.0 WL 968740 (Ofila App. 8 Dest>0
^dvez:se to Lhe tionmOAAg party. D^ich v,
Mentor
St. id ^^^ 16^^M
f:eii^,^ze ^s. We^^n ^Jn^^ d
Inc. (1977)^ 50 Ohia St.2d317S32T To ob^
tain a s.^im
.mary ;ud^ent tinder Civ.R:
LU, the moving part;y ^^ears theinitial responsibili^y of informing the co-tirit of the
ba^^9 for the motion and ^^^^nti^ing tl^i^^e
porda^^^ os' the record which support the.requestodju^^^^nt V-ah^la-^--11a11_fj997). 77Ohio AM42:L430o ^^ the ^oviiig paaty
discharges this initial burden, the paily
against whom tlie. motion is ^^de' then ^oars
a reciprocal burde-n of specificity to oppose
the m otioxi. .1d.S60A also, ^Vhse^'^, neeler
^ 38, OhioSt3d.131,2. Wo r^-^ieiv tbe
t^^al courtk^ judgment ^^ novo and use the
same standard that the trial. ^^urt applies.
un^^r Civ.R. 5^4 See Lee v_ &gnVs^^e
Hraada 1^. ^^^ Oiiic^ ^.W. 33d 657f 660,..^T
CcaastCableL,P, va Harine^^n ('1994^8
QApp,,jd_A34o._44p:
We additionally note ihat Cxv.R. 56 ^.C`^ is
particular in id^iitifyin^^ the ^^cu^^^^^^ that
r^iay be considered in summary judgment
motion practice, They include "the pleadings,.
depositions, answers to a^^^^^^^atora.es§
written admissions, ^tYidavits, transcripts of
^^id^c.-„ and written stipulations of fact, if
any, timely ^lW in tl-ie action * * *,^^ ^^ ^
the case before tLs, both parties` ^^^^ below
<md Itex^ refer to deposition transcripts ths^^
were not n ed andf^^ to exhibits ^^t gre not
w^^^^in the sc^^e of that wtuch QN.e 56(Q)
allows. :^^^aiis^ summary Judgment "Er^^^^^t
be awarded withcaution," see M^rras v:Ohio
,Wd^ El Co.
70 Qht^ a5Qsi J,2 we
consider only those factual ^^^ertions stipa
ported in ^^^ordan^^^ with Civ. R. 56Q, ,
For this ^°r^n^^^1 discharge case, ^p^^lImit doos not contend t^t her employment.
was based oii contract, either express or zmplied. It ^^l - laws thatap^^^an* employment
^^^s at-wilI. As a ^eneral. rule,- ^t-wil1 em^^oymen:t may be t^^iialw^ by ei^^f m-pl^^^r or employee at any uime for any or iio
rmsone See
k1276), 46 Ohip St.2d 245. An, empl-oyer may
not, .however, di^^^^^e an emptoT;e where
Cri^^ ^^^^^arv violates "clear ptib1sc poliuy."
estab:ishedby the Colistitu^^on and statutes
of the United States, the Corztit^^^n and
statutes of Ohio, administrative rules and
regulations, and/or th^^ ^ommc^li law: Kulchy.
^^auctutul Fgbers,
190`r°). 78 ^^^^^ ^t3d
134,;, fllx21j>W^az^na 1 ^2^ ^^_! _^_^°^^ ^^e^^
6-5; Laanter v. 1 1994 . 70 Qhio St.3d
377> G^eeZ^v v,kficpma i€al^eV Magiitenan^e
CorxtracLog,Lc.
*3 With these nalles as out guide, we tum
to appellanVs ^'i^ ^^^gurrxerit ^^errorY which
reads.
I. 1:.t-; TRI,^L COURT ERRED E^
GRAN
I'".[ LNG APPELLEEES' MOTION FGlt
^UMM.^.'^.^a,' JUDGMENT REGAR.DING
A^^ELLANT"S :CLAIM, UNDER THE
STA'.^ ^a W^^^^STLE BLOWER STATUTE,
O.R.C. 4113.
0- 2013 Tkiomscfi. Reuters. No Claiau to Orig. US Gov. W-orks.
Appx. 26
Pa.Se, 4
Not. R-epoil:d i.qNR2d, 2000 WL 96879.0 (Ohio App, 8 Dist.)
(Caie as: 2000 WL 9687-96 (Ohio App. ^ Dist))
'€"ris ^^^ignnient of error is not well tak-
AppelI^iit conteads bor discharge visi1^^^d Oliio`^ whistleblower statute, R.C.
41 13,52P^ ^^e. m^erts litr^ claim under R,C.
4113..52W. 1) wh^ch pr€^^ides:
(P) If an employee becomes a^^^^ in the
^^tLme of bis employment af a ^^latio:^ of
any state or feder^^ statute or any ord.^tiance
o^ ^^^^^^^on of -a political subdi-wision ttia^
1-iis ein.ployer has authori-'ty to correct, mid the
employee -r^asc^nably believes that the violation either is a crima^^ offe^^^ ^^at is ^^keLv
to ^^^^e an imminent iisk of physical h.am to
persofts or a hazard to public health or sa&ty
or i^ a f^^ony>4 the e.^^^^oy^e orally shall nom
tify lii^ supendso.x or other responsible ofzcer of bis employer of the violation and
subsequently sha1l file witl-l ^^^^ su^ervisor or
of-ficeB a ^^er, report ^^^^^ provides ^uffiw
^^ent, detail to identify and describe the -vaow
1atiom If the employe-.^ dQes not correct i1^^
vi : r^lation ormake a reasonable and good fifi^^
effoal to: eo.rrect. the vi^latit^xi wid-iin '^en^^"four :^^^s after the oral nr^tificataon or the
receipt of the.report, w^ch-e'^er i& earlier, the
empioyee May file a ^^tten. repoit that provides sufficient detail to identify and deacribe
the violation with the proseca^^^^ authority
of the county or ^^iiniic€pal carpora.tion wber^
^e v.iala^^^ti occurred, -vath a peace officor,
with the .i^^^^toT.gener^l if the violt^^on. is
within h^^ jurhqdac-tic^^^ ^^ with any other ap-
prepr^ate public ^ff-icial or agency that 1^^
^eLyalcitory aui'ho:rAty aver the employer and
the industry, trade or bminess in Which h^ is
enga-ged.
N ^f M^ eMpl.€^^^e m^^S ar^port under
diVision (N)(1)(a) of this section, the emm
p^^^ery vAtbin. ^wtywf^.^^r hours after the
ozala^oti^ca^^^ was made or the repoit was
received or by tho close of business on the
next regular bus:in-m day ^bIlowing the day
on which the oral 1.10^ification was made or
the report was tocea^ed2 whichever is later,
shalI. notify the c.tiipi^^ee, ^^ ^iting, of any
effort of ^^ employer to correct -ti^e aeged
Violadr^n or ^iazard or of theab^enc^ of't^e
al.^^^^d violation or ha.zard,
47 13.52 B states, in relevant pa-ct
^^^^^pt a-, other provided i^ div^^^ori (C)
of this section,.. no emplt^^^ ^^^^ take any
disciplinary or retaliatory action a^ainst.^
^^nployee for making any r^^ort, authori,^ed.
by division (A).(1) or (2) of^^ section, or as,
a result of the.emp1oyee's having, n^^^ any
inquiry or taken any atlier actirxn to ensure
the accuTa^^ of any ^^rmation. reported
lande.^ either sa^Gh division.
^^^^ th-a^ section, disGaplirikry or retalia
ator^ ^^^io^ includes removing tile ernpioyce
fron^ em^loyment. K_C, 4j. ]..I:Q(BXI).
"In Of der .^^r m emplO^^^ to be afforded
pro^^ctic^^ as a 'whistlebls^wer,} such er^^
^^^^^^ Mu^t StxcflY comply with the dictates
^ 2013 Tls= son it.euters. No C1aim ta Orig, US Cxov, Works,
Appx. 27
Page 5
Not Repaxted it N.&2d, 2000 WL 969790 {Ohio .{kpp. 8 DisQ
(Che as; 2000 WL 968790 (Ohao App4 8 Dist)}
of R: Q. 411.3.51 Failur.e to dosa pTevebts #li^
enip:I^^^e fi-oifi .^laiuxain^ -the protpctions
embodied in the ^^atute.'x C^ntrerasv.^errr
Crantreras, the e mpIoyce. did not comply wa-di
R>Cs. 4113.52 ^A.^ because he did not
^re^y notif^ tai^ superior or offier responsibi^
officer of t the wrporation. of the illegal in-v^^^^ ^iversioiiy and because be did not
pravide his empIoyerwith a written report of
the ^rim-inal activity -Lara^^^ after he revealed
his suspicions. to ^^utsiders, thez^^y'denyi.^g
his einp1oyer the €^^^ortwli^^ to ^^^^^t the
il1°gal zn^ent-ory divers^on. Sima^^rly, in
Ohio^^^.d.^^^e!e^^^loyec did not cr.fnipI.y
with &Q, 4113,52(A) ^ ^ because he did
noc pz^^^^^e his employer with a w^itteu rQport describing the alleged ^SHA,^q^latao.^^
^^-fo^^ he ^^^^^ed the suspected violations to
^^^ 1A. ..^ul_^h-78_Ois.ip ^t.Ma-^ L40a1 42. ^<4
-SeoaLs^nrCJ:19742
Ohi^ ^pI2.3d 137 (employee did not comply
with R.e 41I3o^ ^^^^, because written
report was not filed with appropriate supervisor or other responsible officea;. lackod.
s^fficiexat det-ail. to identify and dese.i:ibe, sp^^
^^fle, safety viola^ion, and was un^^lquod to
prev^ous, oral report),,
Gooa^wll
Lndiisfries 0^. ^ kron (1 99.7) 1 1 2 Q^^s ^^
L25 (em^^oyee's ". exgt interview d^^^^^nents`s
failed tu. pro-vide stffi^^eni,detaz^ to id^^^^^^
and ^^^^ri.be violation as, required fr^^ wrztten
report^.
*4 In the case at l-iand, appellees contend
that. appellant did not ^^rnply witli R.C.
jjI_3..^^CA)fl) because (1) she dti.d not give
t^em. a -written report pro-vidin^ sufficient
detall to Wen.tify arAi describe any violataons,
and. (2) sb^ did n^^ file a. written report ^^^^h
th^ ^^^ Departme.^t of Health ^^^oviti^^^
^ufflozent detail to identify anddescribe any
violations. zkppellant°^ response identified
fiive su^^^^^^^ about which she registered
c€^^^^laints,. ^^ut h^^ response did not set forth
facts that.created matmia1 factual di:^^^^^&
In particular, appOlant first says ^^^
complained to her supervisors ^^ Grande
^^inte resir^ents' files lacked advance direc-^
^^^^^^ tha^ state the re8i&nts° wiahes if faced
with a life-threatening ^llness. ^ppetlV
-t insisted, tl-iat she hanc1.wkov^ several ^otes. to
F^^^^ about bt; but she admits she kept no
c€^^^^^^ and therefore oans^^^ ^^^ow that her
wiritten report pr(A^^od her employer with
^zsu^"
. ^.cient detail to iden^^ =d doscrzN. the:
vlolation" ^s R.C.4113-52CA 1 1(a. ^^quires,
She s^iiai^^ly cl^.i to fiave: written to -tbe
Ohio ^^partnient of ^^^^^^ abo^.:^ a lack of
ad^^^e d^^ect€^^^ in resad^nts° ^^es., but she
kept no copy of any such ^qport mid therefore
cannot s1iow that any such report to the Ohio
^^partment of Health contained "sufficient
^^^ta^l to ideot.^^y and describe the violation"
as &Q. 41 13.52(
_ A?^ ^ ^1 requires.
Appellant secondly ^tate^ that ^^^^ ^rab;r
^om^^^ed to her supervisor that patient ^1d
^^^^^^ee files were iwomplete, Appellant
did not file written reports with ^ith.^^' her
020 13 Thoanson.Reutera. No Claim to ^'3ra& US Gov. Works.
Appx® 28
Page 6
Not ^epodrd an :^:E,2d, 2000 WL 968790 (Ohio App. & DFst.)
(Cite asa 2000 WL 968790 ^Ohio App< 8 M^'^,
^mployer or the Ohio Department of ^^eaIt^A
^^InOrial:iz%^.g these cc^^^laip-tsR so s:1^^ did
not coti^^ly with R.C0.411.3.^^CAI(1,^ on
tJus^ ^ubjec.t.
Appellant does not dispute t1ie testimony
from, the ^'^.ep,^runent of Health records. cU^^
^odia.^ stating that the ^^pait^ent of Health
^iad norecord of any srcomplalnt ^f any ^^it
Pkppel^^t xn.^^ says that. ^he repeateclly
cr^mp^aiiied to her superviso.^ that Gxande
Pointe lacked resident pat1eiii assessments
and multg-datA systems 3iLfoma^^on and ultlniately ATote to t1he Department of ^^^^th
about tlds. Appellant did not ril.^ a written
report ^th her employer on this ma^er. She
also did not keep a copy of hex^^^^ospondn
^^^e to th^ Department of :1^^^^,'^, so she
again ^^^^^ show ^^ report confalnin^
suffx'ciekit d.^^^ to identify and d^^crib^the
vi.alationagR.Q. '113.22^1^ 1 ^` demands.
signed by Nancy Ars&^.,.,Br^^^r wi€:^ the
Ohio Department of Health alleging the viP
olat^on of a:nY safety ordzia=,e andfor rega^^
^^tirsn on the ^^^ of Grand^ -N^,t^ ^^^^^^
Care .Coma.^.un:ity!' Appellatit sp^^^^latc.^ ^^^
^ier correspondence to th.c. O1iio Department
^^ ^^e^lth, " coul^ ^^ve, been intercepted'
^^^:o€^^^ the ^ra^^e Poaiite- ma.ill.€rg, :^^^tem.
Appellant offers no facts in support and, in
any tivent, still cannot s1^^w that her ^^rrex
^^on^^^^^ ^ojatailied. "m.^^^iWt d^tai1 to
identify and descki^^ the vioIatioii" as R.C,
4UI _3 o ^^(A(l)(A) requ1res,
Appellant°s ^`^urth contention. is that she
complained that it -was a violation of the
Nur,^ Practices Ac"^ for a non-nune to be
sr^pervgsing other numes, Th-^^^ is no. docu6
men.tary evidence appellant filed a -written
r^^^^ ^^itli her employor otj tWs xnatter, ^^^^
states 'diat she s^^^t a letter ts^ theDepar1meTit
of I-Iealth on thig stibj^^t but, again, re^^^^ed
110 copy..
^^^^^lan.t. lastly says the letter she wrote
to tl-ic O.hl^ ^^artin.^^ of Health. also re-;
ported that the facility lacked bed rail asR
sessments. There is n^ documentary evx^
^ence. that appellant inad^ aii oral or written
repoxt la her stipen-lss:^r on ^^ii's su'bject, and
shx, again, has no copy of her letter to tI^je
.^^partn^^^^^ of ^ealtha
*5 Appel1ant°s f^lure-to comply ^^&4
with the dicta^es, of A&C, 11.&LZ pre;rents.
her from claiming that statute': protecti(M.
See Contr^ray v. Ferro Corp,, supra; Kudch
is. Struc^ural Fibers, .^na,y supra. '1'he appelM
1^^^ ^^^^^^naRy con tend that appellant cotald
not re.cover wxder R,C, 4113. ^ because of
la0k of causation. S^ecificaliy, the'appelIees'
^^^ence sho'Wed that &,.e;r were unaware tl-iat
appellwit made#ny, RC. ^^^127.52 A t 1) ie9
^^s WM.^ she WaS employed at ^^ran^^
^^ir-te; Appellant there^`^re. could not show
th-a^ the ^piye1lees took any ^sc^^:li^axv or
retaliatory acdon ag^list her 'pecause sh^
made ^ R.C.41_13,5rcport or^^ecais.sQ
she made any inqtairy or iookany^ other acti€^^
to cnsize the accuracy of any information
r0 20I:3 Th©^^^i Rzuter& No ^^^im to Or-ig. I1S 0- ov. Works.
Appx. 29
Nip 7
Not Fepo^lvd bx ME2+^ 2Q09 WT 968790 f^`shao App, 8 Dast.^
(Cite as^ 2000 WI, 968790 (^^io Aqpi. 8 Msij)
.r^ported under that division, 'as E. C.
4113. x^quixes, In Yhorrsazs v, ^^zstes•..
w^
afFirmed a.sszmmary judgin-ent that der^ier^ a
retaliatory dzscharge ^laia iz pait beca.^^se
the oviden^^ showed ^^ ^i-npl^^^^ did not
^^^^ow about the Intenial Revens^^ Smice's
advers^. detea^^ination until aR^r the em-,
ployce was terminated.
In the case at bar, appe}.1wit concedes fhat
she did €iot tell he.r supervisor ^botit. any
cor.^^^unicatio.^s with the Ohio Department
of Healt-a:
Q. Did you.provide copies of these rea
poxls to IC^^n Fogel?
evidence to show ippel1.ees were aware of
^^^^^lant`s statements to t^Ze I)epax^^en^ of
Health -prior to her texminatioll, appellants
evaderice- do" not establish any ^^gwal daspute to uhos,^ ^that her st4tements to the T?^par^^ent of Health caused the appel1^^^ to
retaliate agaiiist her.
^ ^^cause :the'uncisputed fa^^s esta.hlg^h.m.
that appellant did fi€^^ compI^^ striotly -with
^^ _Q._4113.52(A)4"^^^^! aiid.I^er di^^harge was
D.Ot shown in any event to be in retalip#;ion for
wo^ report or inquiry und.ef that section, the
trial court correctly granted the appeslees'
ixiotis^n for ^umm^^ jud.^ ^ent against. ap,
peIlazt on, lier cIaim..
Th^- first assignin^^^ of ^iTor is accordgnjzlv
A. Oti, no; ahsoIufoly not,
Appellant's second assi&mment of ^i-ror
shates.
Q. '^y noi?
A. Because I had beeta. proinised repeat"
ed1y by Karen Fogel that these prohlews
were goiz^^ to be resolved. And.no^ only were
they not res€^lvedr but they were co.^^ntiing
wid pa^^ents ivere at hatm and being contina
ually in the, position of ^o-mg harmed, And
she ' had also bcen screaming and yelling at
me inappxopxia^^ly. So no, I most certainly
d.id not give her a copy. I had ^io ce^^ifidence
that she ^oWd do anytliiz^g differeiit. I
w^rked.,fox:her ^^y weeks aiid she had done
nothing.
(Anham 12/2.2/97 D epo> at .17^) With no
lZ, ' `^HE, TRIAL COURT T ERRED ^
GRANTING ^^ELLEESP MOTION FOR
SUMMARY ' ^^GMENKI' REGARDING
APPELIAN
Il'^ CLAIl^ UNDER THE
IFUR.SING HOME ANTI-RET.1^LIAT^ON
S`EA"FUI`Es O.R°.. 3 72 1,24,
This assigmnent of er:s3r is.not wel.t taken.
Appellaiit. alterna.&Ol.Y axgues that her
disch^^^ violated the Ohio ^tatute- proscrihing r^talia,tion for roporti.^g nursig,
h^^e r^siden:1^ ^aba^^ or ^^glect, R.C.
.^ 2013 Thonzar^ ^eutffs, No Claim to GrEgg, US Gcav. W^rks,
Appx. 30
Pa-ae 9
Not Repozte€ in N.E;2.dr 2000 WL 968793 (Plflio App. 8 DiFt)
(^:^ate as: 2000 NVL 968790 (Ohio App. 8 Dbt).)
3 721 a22(A) states:
xetallaft^ against aii en^p?oyee or anoth.er in-
*6 No licensed healtli professional Who
^^^^ or suspects that a resident has been
abused or neglected, or that a resi^ent'S
property has he-en nii^app^^^riatcd, by any
indgvi^ual used by a long-lerni cc-ire taoiiity
rr residential care facility to provide services
to resi^.^eftts, shail faU to report that.
knowledge or 'uspiclon to the director of
Unde.r R,C. 3721 >2M,
"4Abuse" meai^ ^^^^ingly ^au-siug
physical harm or ^eckIessl^ causing serious
physical hann to a resident by physical cotita^t with the resident or b; use of physical or
chcm^^al restraint, medication, or-lsblati.on as
punlstit-nent, for staff convenlciaceA exc^^sively, a..^ a substitute or treatment, or in
ama^unis that preclude habilitation and
^^^^enL
Und;r R.C 3721..21Ms
.4LNeg1^ce`' means ^ecklessly failing to
provide a resident with any treatment, care.,
goods; or service necessary to mainMin the
licalth or safety of the resident when. the
failure':^^sults in serlou^: physical harm to the
r^^^^e'nte
^-`ippel1ant contends her disdliarge was
retall.atory ln'violation of &^. ^^^ 124^
which ^rovldes.
No person or go.vemgnen1 eatz.tysho
tll.vidual ^^ed by th^ pe^rson os.government.
entity to perform any Work or services who,
in goo.d. fafths. makes a xeport of suspected
abuse or neglect of ^ resident. or rn1sa^pro-•
P.riation o1:. ^^ property of a resident; indim
cates an ^^^^^ntiog to ^ia^^ such a report;
ls^ov^^^s -iz^^^^^tio^ during ^^ investigation
of sus1iecte1 abuse, neglect, or nusappao^^
ation con^^^^ed by the director of I^calthx or
parLicates in a hearing wnducted tinde^
secta0 3' 2l. ,'^ '3^ of ^^^^ Revhed..Q2& or in.
any other .adMial.strat^^^ or judicial prob
^:^ceding.s. pertaining to thb suslrected abu^^,
neglect, or misappropriation. For p€flrposes of
this div.igzon, retAflatorY as;tionsinc:ludd3s.ch^^^n,c,,,,, demoting, or transferring the
ployde or oth^^ person, pr'epaxh.i,^ a negative
work pe6o^mance evaIualioii of the employe.e or other person, reducing flie ben.er€ts;
pav, or ^^^ k privileges of the emlalayee csr
other person, and ^iy otha action ^^^^end.ed to
retaliate against the employee or othe per.sola•
'h.e BIPpell^^s ma.intaln that R.C.
3721.2^- ^ .l^,' p-rovi^ed appellant witil no right
to reiief here ^^^amse s1ie did not flit, any
x^^^^^ of suspected ^eg^^en^ abuse or neglect
W°Ath the Ohl.^ ^^Imrtm^nt of ^^ea1^h and
1^^catise the appellees ^^^^ ^nay,Tare ofaxy
s€^ch. compWnt. or report by z.^pellant For
hcr pan, appel.l^^ firsG contends that RX.
I
3 72 1 24(A) does xa^^ ^^^cify to who r^ the
mport: of suspected resident abuse or neg1^^
must be made, so that "reports" she niade to
0 2013 Thomson RL-Eaten. No Claan-i to Ori& T,7S Gffv. Works.
Appx. 31
Page 9
Not Reported iraXE,2d, 2000 WL 968790 (Ohio App, ^ DisE.)
(Cfte as; 2000 WL 969790 (Ohao App. 8 .^^SQ)
her em.pls^^^r are sufficient. We caianot agree.
IJiider &C-__^.`^2 1.24'.^.), a ^^^^^ed health
professional ^^ -obliged to ^^^oi.1 stispecter^
^buse or ^^^^^ct "to thedirectmr of hea:ith..rA
Sections ^^'-^ and C describe voiuntary repor^
t
ing to the "director of healt.x,x" Ti^^ intervening statute, R.C.L72123, -refers to tbe
dxiti^^ of the dixeetoz of health to investigate
allegations, Reading thvse. staWt^s togetIiero
we believe ti-iat R.C. 372124 for^^^^ ^^tal-iation for reports, wl^ethez^ ^^^igatory or vol:^ntarya made only to tho di.rector of health
^^suant to &'. 3721.22. Any' reports to
^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^s.to appolianVs employer, of
suspected ^^^id^^t. abuse or neglect do .^^^
qualify bbr protectiota under R.C
a721 22_4LAJ.
*7 A^^ellant alk-matively argues that slie
c^^^ ^^^^rt her can^ertis to the ^^pailment of
^^ea^^^i atid assisted in the ^epartm^n-Cs inM
vestigaflons. of the deaths of residents Helen
^^^wri. aiid Edw-ard ^'xriy. Appe1larit d.oeg not
dispute that tlie Departmetit°s inv^^gataons
c^^^^^^ matteri arose frorn complaints made
on De^e-mber 14, 1995 and Jziiiuary 4, 1996,
and thus pre-da^d appellantrs lantiary 29,
their motiori, for ^miaz^ia^^ judgment, f^e appeIlees denied ^^^^^wing that appe1lant had
made any complaints or reports to the De
p^.^ent of Ilea1^h while she was employed
at ^-T€`ande Pointe. Appellant did n^-t ^ubmit
^n-y evidence to contest that fact. ^^^ca^^^- she
did rz^^ dispute that. the appe1tees lacked
kno-orledge of her state.^^rnis to tho Depart^
^^^^ of HeaIth, appellant ^otiI^ not show the
^pp^^^^e^ disebarged her in retaliation ^^^^^
those s-ta^ements, ^^e Thomas v. .Masxarshap
Corp., ^^^ra
Moreover, as leg%ffinate :^o-a-reWiatory
a^^aw^s for the termi-nataom. of her e€ii^^^oy-.
ment^ the appel^^^^ identified q^;^gl^^n^;°^
.;^hron^c dbsenteeism. and her lack of ^eara
wazk-.; which 4^reated division anion^ the
gtaff.s' Appell.wt did not s^^^^^ ^^^^ evade:^^^^
to co^.^es^. thes^ :^acts,. S^:^ 1^^eWiSe pren
sented no evidence to snow that the ^^^ed
reasons for her termlzi:atiorz werc' niere pre„
text.
Appellant did not s:ubxnzt evidence e2talb^
^^shii1g a triable factual question to show that
her ^ig.char^e was retaliatory in vaolatioll of
R.C. 3721, 24(A)e "Fh^ trial court coa^ectly
1996 hiring. She a.1eges ^.^ Department of
Health su^eycfrg spol-^ ^^th^er about these
^.a.att^^^ on Pt^bruary 29, 1996 and on March
6, 1906. Sh^ insis€s- that 'h^^ ^^tem^nts to
representatives from the I^el^arftnent of
^-lealth led to her discharge on A^ffl 33Y 1.996.
granted summary jud^inent on that cja.:^.
^^ th^^efore overrule apptillantt^ second
assi ; aiit erf error.
For their evidence offered hi- support of
111. THE TRLkL C^U, RT E^RED LN
,^^^^^lanes third assignment o^' error
0 2013 Thoznso[z. Reuters. I^a Clai¢n to Osig. US Gov, WQxk&
Appx. 32
Pago 10
Not R6porfe¢I -M 1'd.^K,2c#, 2000 WL 9,68790.(0hio App. 9 Dist)
(Cz9;e.as; 2000 WL 968-790 (^)tda App. 8 Dbt.^^
CTRAN'I`ING A1'PE"LLEES`.MOT^0N FOR
^'C1MMARY .l"I.JDG'TWEN
IT REGARDING
APPELLANrrg^ CLA.^M
, FOR. W'RONGFU1,
DISC.HARGE N V101dAT1O.^ OF PUBLIC
POIIlCYo
Appel:^'2nt argues that her discharge in
violation of clear ^^bli^^ policy permits her to
^ainTain aea^mmrsnalaw ca^^ ^ of action in
torl. This a.ssagnmen1 of ^i-rox is. not well
t^en.
W1-^oa an at-wil.l. emptoyceFs discharge
violates clear public poIacy, the emlaloyee°s
remedgeF, are cL¢r^^lativ^ and she may pursue
iliose xeiraedies &,.at the law itseff provides for
the violation or those that' are available in a
eom-non„l^.^€^ ^^^^ of action in. tort, but she
is not entided to doublw. recovery. .^.'ulch v,
S1^^uclra€°al' Flher.s, Inco, sulyra, Greeley v.
-Maami Valley Maintenai^^e Contrs., Inar
sugra Conversely, ^^^en the emp1oyee'^
^^^harge isnot actionable under the ^^^^ that
establishes t;tie "clear pub1iQ pohey;" the
;o .r^pani:c3n cornmon-law' c-la"ani f6r relief
likewise fails as a matter of law, In Kut'chj
>supra, the court held that becaase ^^^cb did
not strictly cc^mpl^ vri:^ tize re.qua^ements of
R.Q,0^113.52AA`
in i-eporting Ms eni
ployer, he 1^ad "no foundation for.a Ga^^eky
el-aim b^ed on tize. public policy eaiibodibd 'm
E., ^€1j3.^^ Ild:._78Ohic^ &3d at
154, By contrast, Kulc:h's disti-act^^ valid
claim under 1t.C.. 4 1 13e52 A' 2" . allowed him
to seek the rel€'of provided by R.C. 411152.
and add^tir^^^y furnis1°^ed "a si^cond and
i-ndependent fot.ai.^iation for a Greeley claim
pyerjised upon the clear public p^^ie-y emk^odied in &QtA1.l 3.51s' Icl
*8 In the case: at bar, h^lveverz ^^^ ^^^^
already determ€rA tl^at appeliwit fiiIed -to
eslablls^^ grounds ^^r relie.^^^^ier eithe.r R.C..
411152 or R.C. ^L21 .^^o A^^el^ant does not
identify any other so urce o.-tr €`clear public
policy" to sustain h-or wrongft€1 discharge
claim. lt follows that the ^^senc^ of any
foundation frr relief under those statutes
ffir^^^^^^s her frssm. pursuing relief by a
^^mmrsn^law tort ^^ai im We niust ffierefore
overaW^ her thfi'd assigmneit1 of error.
AppeIlanf^ zourLh assig-muent of error
stateSa
IV. TTIE '1'RIAL ^^U-RT E^^^ IN
GRANTiNG APPEL,^^ES° ^OTI^N, FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON" AP;1?E.1,
L^^:..^"1"^ DEFAMATION ^LAIM,
This a^^ignment of err.or is, not ^^^^l tak..
en,
Appellant contends that she was d^fw^ed.
when ap^^^^ee. Fog°l told z3cr during an office
meeting witb other employees that I`l'x^^ not
worth the salary that I'm alx°eady being pald.x^
On ^^iber occas}on% appellee Fogel ^^^.jed
across a hallwa;^. in :^oii1 of staffmembers3
residents and residents' family membevs.
4iYou are noffii^g but trouble# °r The appellees
contend that tliese s.wement^ ^^ not a^-
Q
D 2.013 'T^omsan ReuWrs, No Cxai^oto Dr.igp_'US Gov. Works.
Appx. 33
Page t ^
^^^t R^-^po¢ted i.r3. XT,E.20, ^000 WL 968790 (Ohio Appm &NsL)
(O^e = 2000 WL .968790 (01do App, 8 Dsst))
tionable because theyr were statements of
opii^iiDDy not fact, and were nec^^sadly riot
fW:^^. T-he appell^^s Iflurth^^ contend that the
sta^em^iits were subject to a qua:i^fied privim
iege in ^^ ev^nt. We conclude that the
staterne.^^^ cited by appe^lmt were not actionable her.c.
Ddamation gs a false publzcaiii^^ ^^^^
injury t^ a ^^^son'^ ^^putatzoD.or exposing t^^
person to public, hatred, coiatempty ridlcu^^^
^hame or d°a^grgcos or affecting i^ie, perso€a..
adver^^^^ in ^^ ^eTson.`s trade or b:^^lnes&
See Br vmE^^h Nann-^ &. Gov, School
(1906)x 117 Ohzo Agp3d__1ali Wt^ilc
false statement^ of fact may be a^^onable:
sW^^^nts of opi^^on are xsot, because of the
First ^^^ndment. S_-e ^"^,^gz
i^, ^.9
^,..^.._.-Irac. 19741, 418 U.S. 321 In V^il. v.
The Plain Dealer Publzshi^^- Co. (1995)x the
^ourf& sy1^^bus states:
When determining whether speech is
'
protected opini€^^
a ourt . must consider the
totality of the ci^cum.^^ances. Specafi ;all,yy a
^^^ should consider- the specific language
at z^^suey whether the statement ig v^riflab1ef
the ^^^^^^ context of t'he state.meat9. and thi,3a^^^^^ context in which the, statemeiit. ap,.
peazed. ^Citations on-iitt.ed,^
In ttie instant case, we t.l^ink it inescapab1e that the statements appellant attributes t4)
appellee Fogel were prritected statc.xrs.ents of
s^pifilon. They cannot be st^ovNm to be de
:nonstrably false. As. the appellees cc3rreotly
point out, x4[flh_ language used by fFa:^^^^ is
vaitte--lader^ and represe+-Lts a point q:^ view
tbAt is obviously S'ubjective.'4 V-ail- v, The
Pld%n Deca^er Publishing Co„ siTra, 72 O1^^^
S'Od at 281.
A^^^^lant does not di^pute that Fogel'^
^^^^emevkls lack a plausible method of v^ ^
^^-ationa M-icis a 9ta.tement lacks a ^^ausible
-metli^^ of ve 'facati:.on, a reas€^n-able pers€^ti
will not,beli^^^ that the ^tatemera bm spb
cific facaual content. #%ail, supra, 72 Ohio
SOM at 283. We ^onclude that the stateindntg
cited byappellant are not actzondbl^ as a
matter of law: It is t.herefore. unnecessary for
us to conslider ^^ appeIlees' altiemativ^ ^on^
^^^^or-, that the statements are su^^^ct to a
qualfflw.^ pri-val:^^^ unboss s^^Wn. to have b^^^
made with actua1. malice. See &hn i^ Kotten
( 1.975 ), 41 Ohia &.2d237, ^^^^ fourth as-,
sigment of error is overtu^ed.
* 9 I'he judgr^ent is aninned .
It is s^rdered that appellees ^^oover of
appellant theirzosts herein taxed.
The court fmd^ there were reasonable
growid^ ^^^^ ^^^s ap^eal>
It is ordered that a special ^^date iss-c^^
oiit of this court directing the Common P , ^eas
Coua-t to ^^ry this j ud^^ent into ^^^cutia^^
A certified copy of this entry shall constitut^ the -ffasdate puasuant to RuIe 27 of the
s> 2013 Tli(Fms©n Reuters. No Claarq te Orig, US Gov. Wocks.
Appx. 34
Pa'"1.2.
N#t I(eparked ffi.N.E.2d, 2000 WL 968790 (Ohio App.; 8 T.kist.)
(Cite as. 200 WL 968790 (Ohio App. 4 i}is'^)^
^^^^^ ^f &?Vellate Proe ^^^^^
TEIM,NQ i fflD0^"^".^LL, P ..J., and TINIO7HY E. MeMO NA.."GT1E5 J4$ co-acza.^^.
- N.B. This eiitiy is an s^nnouncement of
^^^ oo^irt"s decision. See A^. ^)y. 2^^^
and L ow..^p..K; ,22, Thi5. d^eisa^t will
be j s^^^^^^d and will become the judgment
,-md order of the eou^ purswn^ to ^^
^^ ^nle^s a inotion. for reconsideratzora
with ' sup^^^ing l5rief, per LAMR=
filed within ter^ (10) days of the an^^^^^^^
^^ent of the ^^urt"s decis^.^^, '^h^ time Pe^°i.dd
for aeview ^ ^y the Supreme Court of Ohio
shall begin: to run upon the-j^^rnAl.izataon of
this ^ourt°s aimotmcement of decision bv the
clerk per App.Ro ^^.^. See,. also,
SeU^,Pra"c.K II$ ^^^^^^i 2(A)(1).
^N1. Richmond Nursing, Thre, lixas
not named as a party-defendant,, b^it
fis absence does not ^^ea-r ^^^terial.
'^*T^. At the ^iaic this case 'was
pending beIoW, CiLve-R. ^^ ^ ^^^^d
transcripts of ovidence " in the pend-^
ing, case:" A 1999 {zoendment deleted
that restnctioil,
EM, A.Pp^^lant'^ ^laifa is ^oveme€^
by that version c^^^' &e 4113:^52
^orided by Am^Sub.IIA. 588, ^ffe^ti,ve October .3a,. 1990. We note
that ^^..C. 4:LI2dZ was ^^^^^^-uently
amended 'by AmoSdb.1^,13< 350,
^^ich3 by Sec'^ioli 6 of that act, ap^
^^^ed only to civil ac1^^^^^ basod on
tortio-o's conduo^ ^^^s^eiam^ on or
at-te: the .;^mary 27, 1997 effective
date of the acto While the Supreme
^^^^ of Ohio. retently dwlarcd
-Arn,Su.boH.B. 350 ^^^on^^itutaorzat in
toto.^ W,- a^0Le__e^ ^eL._0_haq A cademy
o^ 7rict1 Laiv^ty^^__^.
86 OhioSt.a--d 45 L: thit act would not
havt applied.h^^e in ^^ ^^ent becaus^ ^^ ^ectzon 6.
^^^, Wbal.e Kulche^ fail'U* to give his
employer a written r^^^^t was -feal to
his ^laim under R.C. 411332f^:'
his clairn' ^)r?det R.C 4 ^....^... ..........,.
survived because that section did os^^
^^^^^e the employee tcF infonn thc
employer, eitbelr orally or In ^,^i#ffig,
concerning violations of ^e-^.^'pe ^.e^
scribed in R.C. 4.111,52LA)Q .. -.^^
^kkb.' 78 OhLoSt.3d at_ L43a148,
AppelIant dr^^s not rely on RX.
41 1.:^ L2_'AX2 ^ ^^e and her ^lairn
^..
does not appear to ivv^^^Q, any t^^ the
matters within the scope of ttiat seQw
1€0a1.
EmNL While app^^^t notes that tj,.jere
were no r^^rds reflectin^f that she
had been di^^ipl-ined or otherwise
Memoaializing her supe.^^sor"s con^em^ ^^^^ ap^^lant`^ work perturmmee, she offered no evidcnce^ to
dispute. appe1lees' evidence that she
wa,.^ 4baeub s`approx^,^.ateIy sLxteeii
F^ 2013 Th^lmon Routers. No Claiin to 0^Zg. US Gov. Wawk-5.
Appx. 35
Page 13
Nut Reported in NZ,2€€,.21000 WI, 968790 (Ohio App. 8 Dist.)
(Cite ase 2000 WL 968790 (Oh ➢ o App. 8 Dista)^
=d one-half days in Janoaq and
Febi-uary 1996,"
OMo App. 8 Dist;,2000,
Axs:^amwBi^eriner v. Grande .^^^it. .^eAttli
Care Community
iNc^t Reported in KE92d, 2000 WL 968790
(Ohio App. Dast,)
END OF DOC UMENT
0 20"13 Thomson Reu^^, iNo Chiam to Drag. US Gav. Works.
Appxm "36
----------- - -----------------
pq
A^oo
. .
.
.
.
.
.
'J.
^
.
.
.
.
.....
._'^
I I
J
J
f....fr`
^
In the ^upre e ^ourt of Oh1'.01'.
APP ^ FROM THE COURT OF API'FALS
FERs s APPELu i E DISTP,ICT
TiAma,"I'O:^ COUNTY, 01-1.10
CA^E. No. C 120822
PA.i ^CIA hULSMEYER,,
PIaintiff-A^pelIee,:
v:
HOSPICE OF SOUI`HWEST OHIO,INC., et ala,
,^ef^ndants-Appe1lants
JOINT NOT^CE OF APPEAL OF APPEI.LANT^ ^ROOKT)A3,E SENIOR ^IVING9 INC.,
HOSPICE OF SOUTHWEST OHIO, INCap AND JOSEPH KILI,,I^N ,
Rob^^ k n^^^^ 5usan X Aud^^y (006281B)
Brian J. Butler C€^unsel of fleccardj
R:OBERT,A. KLINGLER Co,r LPA; "^^^^ria L. Van c e 001310" 5)
5^5. Vine Sti^^^^ Suite 2320.. 7TJ^^R FLLIS ^ LPCincinnataA
0H 45202-313.3 950 Main AvenueySuite.1160
1
;'ek (511) 665-9500 Cleveland, OH 44113^7213 ,,.
Faxi. (513) 621-3240 Tele` (2^0). 5-92ZQOO
zak@k1zM1gLlaw.co;^: Fax: (Z!6) 592-5009
-W, 1ea1amco
li^ ^om
,
_.
Atw,^^ej^sfirPlaindff-Appo^e4
Patricia Hu^^meyer Attortae^`^
^srD6-f^oaant.AppellarrtBrookdale
.. ... . ^endor L^ying,.Ina ;. . ..:,,,
.
NOV 1 k 2013:.
^^^^^^^^ONT.,,,.
St^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^D
Appx¢ 37
Michael W; Hawldns (0012707)
(Counsel of Record)
Faith C. Whittaker {0082486)
DINSMORE&SH:®HL LLP
255 East FiftTi Street, Suite 1900
Cincinnati, OH 452!02
(513) 477-8200
Fax: (513) 977-8141
machl hawkins0dinsm®re.c®m
faith.v^hittaker(Pdiri:imore.corn
.Atti^^ni--jr,sfar Defe-ridrrnts-AppedPcantsHospice
(rfSvuthwes.t Ohdo,lzac-, cancl Joseph Ifrllian
Appx• 38
Joaiit Notice of A.pp^c-XIA
Appellants Brookdale Senior iazvin& Tn'c., Hospice of Soutiiwest Oliia, Inc., aiid JoseT)}3
Milian hereby givp- notice of appeal to the Su^reniE:. Court ol"Oh_io from t-he judgment of the
Harrii.to^1 Cc) t z^^.^ ^fyi:.rt of :^ppeal^^, Fgt^Appeilate Distriet; ei^t^.A ed i^i Cr3rzzt ofApgeaIs Case
No. C 120822 on September 25, 2013,
This €^^se. invoGves an issue ^^pubi:^ and great gei3erai inte-rest Moreover, the FirsL
r1ppel1ate District ceriin+ud its ju^gn3ent as being i^^ ^onflict with th-e judgment of the.
Cuyahoga Coumftg^ Court of Appeals, Eighth .,.kppcxl.fate District, Vrithin `hA text of its
Septer^ber 7^ jUdgment and Appellants here fiied a Joint NcFtic:e of f;ttrtiSie.d Conflict on
October 18, 201 3,which is d.^ke4:ed i^ithis ^ourt ^s C^^eNo. 2013--1644,
Re:;peeffuliy sub-^fii i:i:ed.,
^ ^ .., ^^ .. .
Michael awluns ^0Q^.^^i^ ^ ^
Susaii M. Audey {062818)
(CduraseI of Re'co^d)
fcouxl.^^^l of'Record)
-..Faith. C: Whittaker (008248(i) Victbtaa L 4Ta nce (0'013 1015)
bINSM4lAF & SHOHL LLP TUCKER ELLIS LLP
255 East ^a^a St^^^^b ^^z^^ 1900
'0 ^`1aiai Avenue, S;^i^e. 1_1^^^
'CiraciiiYiati, CT:F45202 CIe-p-land, OH 44113
Te1,' (513) 977-8200 Tc(: 21.6,592.5000
Fax: (5 13) 9'77-8141 Fax: 21.6.592. a009
•^:^. :^h,r_^.^^ ^^ ^i'^Q'.^fi._n:^^r^c^r^., c3 x^
^udeY-@P'^mel..i^& ^fn-1
,,^^^_^^ v^^ _e^:E^+^i^k^.^ca)l;.s-r^^^.
^t^z3rr_vsftrDejendants-Appedfurit- HosPic^ Att0rney>s Earl)qferaciant^Appellant,?,roo^:^^le
c;ffout1^I'iest Ohio, Irc. andjras^ph fi.flfiara sprior i,hiry, .^^ic.
AppxQ 39
A copy of the. zoregni.ng w a.s served on l°^c^^^n^ks^^° 12, 201.3 per &C;t.Pr_:c.R: 3.11
by ^^aflFn,- it bv Unii:ed. Staies mail a' nd ei^ctronic'allybv 6-mail i.o:
Robe'rt.A Minzier
Brian j.:But1^^
A^brr^^yfor Plazinoff-App^^le^
ROBERTA. KLINGLER Co., LY:A. S 2SVine :Streea^ Suite1320
Cincizznati,.Oli 45202-3133
_^.
- --------- ---- One of the A,sforAppeli^nts
O t2954.Ot'.0003.: 9215631. F .
Appx. 4U
IN `.'HE SUPREME COURT OF [3HIO
PATRICI,^ HUL^^YER
A^^^LLEEICR^^S-APPET,^^ ,
. ^ase'Noa 2013^1766
On Appeal from the Hama.lton County
Court of Appeals, First Ap^ll^e District
var.
Court of Appeals.Case.No,: C 120822
HOS.^^^E OFSOLTHWEST OHIO,. INC.q
^t a1.. Cextift^ ^orffll1ct Case Nb.; 2013a1644
^PE.LLAN'T^^CROSSAPPELLEESP
NOTICE OF C-^^^^^EAL OF APPELLEE1CROSS-A^^ELIJ.z."^T PA'I`RiCLA,
Robert A. Kl1ngler (0011603)
.13aian J. Butler (OQ82675)
Robert A. Kl1ngler Co.; L.P,Aa:
525,Vi ne Steoctg ^uite. 2320
anai^ati, Ohio 45202
Telephone: (51^) 665-9500
F^sitmle; (513) 621--3240
E-maals rok@k-l'mglerlaw.com
lsjb;ldln,ojerlaw.^^^
Attorneysf^^ Appellee✓Cross_ ,^^pellant
Pwrzda Hu1srneyer
,^
^
^^^^f0
5^
CLERK GH^^^ ^
^^^^R L ^^^ ^G, URM 0 r (
Susan M. Audey ^^^^^^ ^ 8-)
Victoria L.. Vance (00 13105)
T^ckez 'Ellis l..T^^
950 Main Avenue, Suite l.1^^o
Clev^land, Ohio 44113
Telephone, (216) 592^5000
Facsimile: (216) 592-5009
Email: ^^^san.aude3^^;^ackereffisewm
€^,,^tuckerellls.;Pom
Victoria-vrnce,^'
Artorneyxf(arAppe.llaratICross:,4pgellee
.t^rookdole &Wor Living, Inc.
Michael We Hawldw {0012707)
Fai ^l C. ^^^^^^ (0082486}
^^^srdore & Shohl LLP
1900 Chemed Co€iter
255 East Fifth Street
^^nclnnagiy Ohio 45202
Telephone; (513) 977-821:0
Facsim%le: (513) 977-8141
Email: m.achaelo.lawklns@dffismore ,com
faifih. whitWrex@rllnsmore^. ^OM
` Attorneys,^o?, Appellants,,'Cro,^s-Appellegs
Hospice €af'S€^uthwest Ohio, ^nc, and Joseph
XallIan
NOV 2 0 :Z"Q 13
nFCCURT
F^uRt or^- oHio
Appxs 41
^^^^lk-ed^ross-Appell^^ ^atrici^ ^^s"meyer; by and th-roragh counsel, ^^^e'by piv^^
no#im c^^ h e^ ^^^ ^^^e at to th c 8•aprea^e C aurt o f Ob.i o^'^°o m th e jud^m ent. o f ^e, H a rm'i tQ! i
County, Court of 1^^pmls9 ^^^s! Appellate District, en^^^d in Couxt of Appeals Caser^io< C
^ ^^82-2. g.n September 25, 2013.
^ ^^^ case is Gr^e of pr^blic or ^a^ ^encral intercste
Respect_-fiffl^ submitted,
.^
r
•-----^^'^-----Ro'beit A. KEn.^ler (0031663)
Bnan J. Butler (0082675)
ROBEW! A. KU^ GLFR CO., LPA
525 Vir^^ Street^ Suite 2.320
Uncianatar Ohio 45202
']"el.ep^one: (513) 665-9500
Facsirm'le, (513) 621P3240
Emilo rak@klinglerlawxorn
,^^orneysfor..^ppel^^elCro.rs--4^^^ll,ant
Patrzcga Huhme^er
2
Appxm 42 1
CERTIFICATE CiF SERVICE
I hereby ^er* that a copy of tb.e fQr^^^^^^ has been duly served upon the foI^awin^ by
^^^ctranic and regular U.S. mail this 19th day of- November 2013 to:
V YWtF.FS fa4i L. 9aAcb
(0V 13 10)
St^san M. Audey (00^.281 ^)
Taieker Eflis LL-P
950 Main A^^nue5 Suite ] 100
C1eveland^ ^^io 44113
Telephone: (216) 592m5€30U
Facsimile: (216)592w5009
E-mail: va^tori^^ance@ 9rkerellis.com
susarl.audey@tuckerellisor,orn
Aftrne).rsfbr Appel1z^ntlCres^ ^ppelZee
Brookdale Senior La-vzng, lnc.
Michael W. ^lawkins (0012.707)
Faith, C. `^^ttaker (0082486)
DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
.1900 Chett^^ ^e-uter
255 East Faftb. Street
Ci^^^nnati} Ohio 45202
Telephone: (513) 9774200
F^simile:- (513) 9774141
.Email9 mic1mi.hawk.ins@s3insmare.^^m
faith..wh,i.ttaker`
^,dinsmore.com
AXtorne,^sf^^ ^ppell^nts0Cro,^s-AppelXees
Hospice ofSouthwest Ohzor Inc. .and Joseph Killian
Robert A. K1.^ ^,,^;Ier
,3
Appx4 43
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
PAMCIA ^ULSMEY1^`.eRy
rE D
S 25 2013
A.^.^PEAL NO. Cm=8122
TRIAL NO. ^^^^^^^^^
Plaintiff-Appellantp
^UDGMEWE^1'.^`!^Y,
V&
HOSPICE OF SOUTHWEST OHIO,
IN'e.s. g
irnu
JOSEPH .C^LLlANp
and
BROOKDALE SENIOR LMNG, INCe$
1"^^^endants-Appelleese
This cause was heard upon the appeal, the record, the briefs, and argument&
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, ansl, s^auq,^-
r^^^nded for the remons set fortb.1"n the Opinion filecl this date.
Further, the court holds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal, allows
no penalty and orders ^^ costs are taxed under App4 R- 24^
The Court ^^r orders that i) a copy of this Judgment with a copy of the opinion
attached constitutes the naaixdate, and 2) the mandate be sent to the tiia1 court for execution
under App. R. 2T
To the clerka
Enter up^^ ^a1 of the ^^ on Septembc;r-25x 2os3 per order of the ^^urt4
By:
°
Presiding u"ge
Appx. 44
rEFEo
,
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
SEP 2S . 20f3
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
PA^CIA HULSMEYER,
APPEAL NYO, C-120822
TRLkL NO. A-i201578
ff Appel^an^,
PIainfi,
vs,
OPIN.^ OX
HOSPICE OF SOUTHWEST OHIO,
TNCe,
JOSEPH I^LULN^
PRESENTED TO THE CLERK
OF COURTS FOR FILING
and
SEP 2 5 2013,
BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING, INC.y
Def^ndants-Appeli eesv
COURT OF APPEALS
^ivil Appeal FromR Hamilton C€^un^ Court of Common Pleas
Judgment Appealed From ^^ Affirmed in Pa-pt, Reversed in 1>art3 and Cause
Remanded
Date of Judgment Entry on A^^ealo September 25, 20:13
RobertAo Klingler Co. LYA., RobertA, Klingler and Brian J. Butler, for Pl°^ntiffAppellG;Sni,
.^imsmor^ & ^^ohI, LLPy Michael Ha^^ns and Faith Isenhath, for ^efendantss
Ap^^^^^^ ^lo^^^e of Southwest Ohio, Inc., and Joseph Killian,
Tucker Ellis & West LLP, Victoria Vance and Susan M. Audey for I^^^endant4
AppeIlee Brookdale Senior L^^^^ Ince,
Michael Kirkra€^^ and Ohio Disability Rights Law and Policy Center, Inc,9 for
Ami^^^ ^unae Disability Rights Ohio,
Appx. 45
ENTERED
01-110 FIR,.'^'b' ^i:9'E'RIcT `ouRT oF A&8P.F.A..is
25. 2013
AARP Foundation Litigation, Kelly Bagby, Kgmher^y Berraarr^ and Alison .^^lb, for
^ir-us Curiae AARP.
^^^as,c; note: this case has been removed from the accelera^^^ calendar.
2
Appx. 46
^Hi^ ^iRST Di5rrRIUr ^^uRT oF APPL, ALs
RED
SEP 2 5. 2013
Per C-uriam.
flI l Plaintiff-appellant Patricia Hulsmeyer appeals the trial nourf^ judgment
€^smissiaxg her claims for retaliation under R.C. 3721.24 and for wrongful discharge in
violation of public policy against defendant-s-appe.^^ees, her f^jrmer employer, Hospice of
Southwest Ohio,. Inc. ("H€^^^ice')n its CEO, Joseph K€^^ian, and Brookdale Senior ,L,hirgg,
Inc. ("Brookdale'), a corporation that operated a long term and residential care ^aeflg^
^^^^^^ Hospice provided services.
[1[12^ Because Hulsmeyer need not report suspected abuse or neglect of a
nursing home resident to the Ohio Direr-to.r of Health to state a claim for retaliation
under R.C. 3721.24, we reverse that part of the trial court's judgment dismissing her
rewiation daim under R.C. 3721.24 against Hn^^ice., Killian, and B-Yookdale. We, affirm
houPeverY the dismissal of her claim against Hospice for a^ngful discharge in %i®lation
of public poBcy because R.C. 3721.24 provides Hulsmeyer -vvith an adequate ^emedy.
Hutsr€reyes°°s Complaant
(1131 Hulsmeyer is a registered nurse. She formerly served as a team manager
for Hospice. Her duties inclu^^^ overseeing the care of Hospice's patients who resided
at one of Brookdale's fa^^ifi^^ in Cincinnati, and supervising other Hospice nurses -wh€^
proAded care to those residents. On Oetdber?,9S 2o1g5 du^^^^ a patient care meeting of
Hospice employees an,^,vhach Haa.lsmeyer participated, a ^^^^^^e nunse indicated the, one
of Hospice's patients at Brookdale had suffered some bruising, which she feared was the
result of abuse or ^^^ect at the hands of Brookdale staff. A second Hospice employee,
an aide, had taken photographs of the injuries at the patient's request, which she showed
to those in attendance, Th-ree Hospice employees, who were present at the meeting,
informed Hulsmeyer that she was obligated to caU Brookdale and the patient's family
immediately to report the suspected abuse or neglect.
a
Appx. 47
£;. $14 9 L- d'®^&.^
OHgC) FIRST DISTPdCT^OURT
OIR APPEALS I SEP 25,2013 ,
{$4} ^^^^meyer immediately called the Director of Nursing at Bma^.dale,
Cyrxffiia Spaunagle, to report her suspi^^iis of abuse or neglect. Spaunagle said that she
wauid take all appropriate measures, including contacting, the pat^ent's daughter after
ordering an examination of the injuries. Hulsmeyer then re}^orted. the suspected abuse
to her own supervisor, Hospim's Chief CLf raica^ Officer, Isha Abduilalk, but Abdullah did
not appear to take the report seriouslv. Finally, Hulsmeyer called the patient's daughter,
who was also the ^atien.tYs pmover of attorney, reported the swpected abuse, and
infcarrned her that Spaunagle woWd be contacd.^g her. The follovving day Hulsmeyer
^^bmitted a written report to Abdullah cor^ceniing the suspected abuse or neglect of the
patient.
(15) On October 24, ^?mix t^^^ patient's daughter amtacted Hulsmeyer and
left a voice message stating that Sy^^una^e had not yet contacted her. 'Later ffiat same
day, the patientgs daughter contacted Hulsmeyer and informed her that she had called
Ida Hecht, the Executive Director of ^^ookdale9 seeking inforr^atiorl. about her mother4s
injuries. Hecht had not heard about the injuries or Hu^.^^^^er's suspicions of a1^^^^ or
neglect, but she told the patient's daughter that she would look into the matters On
November 4,, 2oia, a meeting was heSd. at Brookdale to discuss the patient's care.
Numerous Braaokd^^^ and Hospice employees were present, including Huls^eyer, as
well as the patient's son and daughter.
{1[6} On No-v^mbec 11, 2011, Hulsmeyer began a planra.er3.1eav^ of absence to
undergo a medical procedure and was not to return towor1^ until November 28, 2011^
During 1^^smeyer`s leave of absence, Jaelde Lippert, Regional Health and Weliness
Director for ^rookdai.ey contacted Hospice and demanded to know who had informed
the patient's daughter of the suspected abuse or negiecte During the telephone call, Ms.
4
Appx. 48
OHiA FIM'i° DISTRICT COURT oF AP^^^ ^ ^^^ERE^
I
5. 2013
Lippert stated, "W^ got rid of our ^roblem (Spaunaglel, what are you going to do?4"'
^^^kdale had terminated Spaunagle.
{17) On November 28, 201.1, Hals.-neyer`s, first day back at work following her
leave of absence, Abdullah asked Hulsmeyer to joa^ her ir, her offi^^ Betty ^^mett,
Hospi&s COO and. ^^^^^or of Human Resources, was also in ^bduRah's office. 7^ey
explained to Hulsmeyer that they all had to caR Uppext, lippert was irate. She stated
that the patient's daughter had told her that she would not recommend Brookdale to
anyarieo She accused Hulsmeyer of m^^^^ ^^^^^^le- 'look ba.d'x and '^^rring. up
problems." After Barnett asked what should have beeix done differently, ^^^^^
snapped, "The family shotild not have been called and the photographs should not have
been tak-en." Fiixallyx Lippert threatened that Brookdale would cease reecsmz^^^^^^
Hospir-e to its residents.
^^^^ Two days later, Bamett c0^ Hulsmeyer into her office and informed
her that she wotild be texmi^^^ed0 1a^en abaa by the termination, Hulsmeyer
attempted to meet ivith Kiihan, bta^ ^arnett informed Hu^smeyer that ^^^ had
izwtxu^^ Barnett to "cdt ti^" with ^fulsmeyea^ and ^iat he "Edidn'tl want to be
associated with her" because he '[didn'^] -ha^e time.''
^^^^^ ^^^ November 3o,. 2oi.x, in a letter signed by Killian and Abdifflah,
Hospice informed Hulsmeyer that she was terminated. In the letter, .flospicp- stated,
that Fluismeyer had not- timely notified Hospice's "Management" about the ^^^^^ed
abuse, criticzzedher for notafymg the pat€^nes daughter about the suspected abuse, and
daimed Hospice's "upper nianager,^ent" had not learned about the sa.ispected abuse until
Uppert had contacted Abdullah, sometime after November 1la 2011e The termination
letter also specifically identified the fact that Huismeyer had contacted the patient's
dauglatex as justification for her termination.
5
AppxR 49
Oiixo FiRST DI^^CT ^OUKF' oi^ M'ff'EALs JENT^ ^ ED
SEP 25. 2013
()11.0} On F^^^^ 28, 20129 Hulsmeyer Med suit against Bz•ookdales Hospg^g
and Killian. She alleged that BrookdaleY Hospice, and KfiIian had wrongfully
I
terminated her employment in violation of KC 3721.24 for repo^^ suspected abuse
and neglect of a nursing home resadent. She also Ps^rted a. claim against Hospice for
wroaxgM discharge in -6olation of public policy and a claim against Brookdale for
tord€a^ interference with a business relationship. Hospice, Killian, and ^rookdale
rr^^^^ pursuant to Cav,R. i2(B)(6) to dismiss a11of Hulsmeyer's claims against them,
'T'^^ trial court dismissed all of ^^ulsmeyerx^ claims without prejudice except her claim
for tortious interference with a business relationship against Brookdale. After
conducting limited discovery, Hulsmeyer dismissed with ^^^ju^ice lzer ^emaiiiing das.m.
against Brookdale to pursue ^sappea^.
Judsdicdc^^
I'ql I} Bror^^^e argues that this court lacks jurisdiedon over Hulsmeyer's
appeal. It asserts that Hulsmeyer is not appealing ftr^^ a final appealable order because
the trial court dismissed fier public ^^^^^, and retaliation claims without prejudice. See
CivoR, 4.i(B)(3); see also Natl. My Coa^mercial Ca^-s^^^l Corp. v. AAM aG Your Serv-x
IMa 114 Ohio Sts3d 82, 2^o7-Ohio-2942, €368 N.E.2d 663, ^ 8. An order granting a
motion to dismiss for faiTuse to state a claim, however, even if expressly ^^^^^ed
without prejudice, may be final and appealable ^ ^^ ^^^^^^^ cannot plead the claims
any differently to state a claim for relief. See George v. State, ioth Dist. Fr^^^^^ Nos,
ioAP-4 and ioAP-97, 2oio-^^io--5.262x 1 13, citing Retcher v. Univ. Hosps. o,^
CZevelandb i2o Ohio Ste^d 167, 2o€^8^Ohio--5379, 897 nEa2r^ 147, ^ 17. Here, the ffial
court's dismissal of Rulsm^ees public policy and retaliation claims was based upon its
conclusion that they fafled as a mater of law.
6
Appx. 50
OHIo FIRST DIS"£RICT COURT OF AP^EAL..^
I ENTERED
I
5- 2013
IT12) The trial court held that Hu?^meyer coqld not stat+^ 'a eiaim for retaliation
because R.,.C. 3721.24 proteeth- a nursing home employee from retaliation only for
reporting or intending to report suspected abuse or neglect of a msident to the Ohio
Director of Health and that Iit^smeyer had fafled to all^^e that she had reported or
intended to report the suspected abuse and neglect to the Ohio Director of ^ealth. It
further held that Ohio public polacywould not be jeopardized if nursing home employees
are terminated for reporting abuse or negler-;t because R.C. 3721.24 affords them azi
adequate remedy.
{113} NotvAthstanding the trial court's notation that it was dismissing the
claims ivithout prejudice, no further allegqtions or statement-R of facts consistent with
the pleadings could cure the defect to these claims. Unless HiAm^^r were to have
disavowed her prior statement that she had not made a report to the Ohio Director of
Health, which would have been hncomistera^ ^ith the allegations in her present
complaint, the taial court's conclusion with respect to her retaliation claim wcawd have
leeai unalterable. Similarly, even if Hulsmeyer were ^o change the facts of her
complaint, her public poHe,^ claim would still fail as a matter of laiv based upon the trial
court's conclusion that she could not ^atl,^fy the jeopardy eiement of the daim because
RsC. 3721e24 had provided her xMth ara adequate remedy. Because there would be no
possible factual scenario under which she. could state a clairn for reW1ati^n in -viol^^^n
of R.C. 3721,24 and for wrozagfai discharge in violation of public policy, the trial court's
dismissal of her claims was in fact an adjudication of the merits of those claims. See
State ex reL Areadaa.Acres u. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Se.avs., 123 Ohio St,3d 54P
2009-OhlO-4176y 914 KEe2d 170,115. We, dZerefrres conclude that Nve have jur%sdicliora
to entertain her appeal.
7
Appx4 51
OHIO RRS'F DISTRICT C{^VRT oiFAPPEAis -
ENTERE-b"
57 5- 2013
Standard of Review
J114) Rn two assigiirr^ents of error, Hulsmeyer argues that the trial court
erred in dismissing her retaliation and public policy claims for failure to state a claim
under ^iv.R.,. 12(13)(6)o We review dismissals by the trial court under C1v,R. 12(B)(6)
un^er. a de novo standard of ^eviewe P^rry^b-urg Twp, v. Rossford; 103 Ohio St.3d
79x ^^04-OhiO-436^,814 N.E.2d. 443 1^, I.n determining the appropriateness of a
dismissal, we, like the trial court, are co'nstrained to take the allegations in the
complai.nt as true, dA-awa.^g all rea"sonabie inf^^p-n^^s in the plaintiffs favor, and then
to decide if the plaintiff has stated any ^asis for relief. Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co,p
40 Ohio St.3d igo, 192,532 NeEe2d. 7,53 (1.988). A d^smgssa^ should be granted only if
the plaintiff can plead no set of facts that would entitle it to refief. O'Brieai u. Uraz^.
Community 7eraant^ UniOn, Inca, 42 Ohio St.2d 242,327 N.Eo2d 753 (1975), syllabus.
Retaliation Claim under R,Co 3721<24
{1I5} In h^^ first assignment of error; Hulsmeyer argues the trial court
erred in dismissing her elaim. forretal°aation under R.C. 372-L24.
(^^^) The traM court held that RX. 3721.,24 only protects employees from
retaliat€€^n who report or intend- to report abuse or neglect to the Ohio Director of
Health. Because Hulsmeyer had not alleged that she had reported or intended to
report the suspected abuse to t:^^^ Director of HealtlaS she could not state a claim for
relief under R.C. ,^721.24. ^nreaching this ce^nr-ItLsirn, the trial court relied upon the
Eight^^ppellate Distz°ietgs decision iri ArshainaBa°enner u. Grande Point Health Care
Conime, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. ^^^^^^ 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 3164 (Juiv x% 2000)y
and an unreported opinion from the Sixth Circuit, Davis v. Marriott .^^^ernatlax Inc.,
6th Cir. No. 04-41,56, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 2-1789 (Oct. 4, 2005), which had
f-ollowedAr^sham-Brenraerv
8
Appx. 52
OHIo FIRST DISTra.te't' COURT OF APPEALS
JENTERED
5. ^^^3
J117) In Arsham-Brenner°p the Eighth District held that the protections
of R.C. 3721.24 apply only when an employer learns that an individual bas reported
ab^s.e or ^p-eiect to the Ohio Director of Health, and thereafter retaliates against that
individual for makizig such a report to the agency. Arsheir€-Brenner at *21. The court
reached this conclusion by readi-ng R.C. 3721.24 together with R-.Ce 3721.22 and
3721.23. The court noted that "[u]nd^r R.C. 3721.22(A), a licensed .bealtb
professional is obligated to report suspected abuse or neglect `to the director of
health.' ^^etioras B and C describe -voluntary reporting to the 'director of health.z '1"h.e
intervening statute, R.C. 3721.23, refers to the duties of the director of health to
in-vestigate alIega^^onsoK The couat noted that by "[fleading these statutes together,
we believe that R004 3721.24 forbids retaliation for reports, whether obligatory or
voluntary, made only to the director of health pursuant to R.C. ^721,22a Any reports
to others, such as to appell.ant'^ employer„ of suspected regid^^t abuse or neglect, do
not qualify for protectionunde.r R.C. 3721.24(A).^ I&
{1181 Similarly, in Dcavis v. Marrz€^^ In^^rnado, Ine.x the Sixth Circuit
rejected an employee's claim that a report of stispected abuse to her ^upemsox^^
satisfied R.C. 3721.24< It stated that the Eighth District's interpretation of the statute
in Arshcarn-Brenner was far from Unrea^onable, given that the Ohio ^^^re^^ Court
had held that " `afl statutes which relate to the same general sub,je^t matter must be
read in pari materia' " and thall- it "ba[d] previously construed -,Aistleblower statutes
narrowly.' Davis at *8, quoting Carnes v, Kemp, 104 Ohio St.3d. 629, 2004^Ohao7107p 821 NoE,2d i8os 116, and citing Kufch, u, Stn.¢cturalHbers, IRee, 78 Ohio Sto3d
134, 677 N.E.2d 308 (1997). As a result, the Sixth Circuit followed Arshani--Brenner,
read the statutes together, and held that the employee's complaint had failed to state
9
Appx. 53
€^^o F^rtST ^^^^iuc^ ^^uRT OF a^PEAL^ ^ ^ NTEREC^
SEP 252013
a claim for retaliatory discharge under RX, 3721.24 because she had not ali^g_W t^at
she had. made or ^^^erided to make a report to the director of healtho Davis at *9.
IT119;^ Hulsmeyer argues that the t^~`^al couat,. as well. as the ArsizarnBreranea° and Davis courts, ^rred by reading R.C. 3721.24 in pari mat^^a with RoC<
3721.22 and 3721,23, She argues that under the rules of statutory ^^nstTuction, a
ex)ua~^ inust first look to the language of thestatute, itseff, -and beCaa^^e R.C. 3721.24 ^S
unambiguous, there is no need to look to R.C. 3721.22 or 3721.23 ^^ interpret R.C.
3721.24. Hospice, Kil.Iaan, and ^rookdale, argue, on the other hand, that this court
should follow the interpa^etatiori of R,C. 37-21.24 set fOrffi in Aa~sharn-Brenner° and
Davis. They argue that because R.C. 3721.22 and 3721.24 relate to the same subject
mat^er---reporting resident abuse and neglect-that they must be construed together
and be read in ^ari ma^eria.
JT20) The interpretation of a statute is a matter of law that an appellate
court reviews under a de novc^ ^tandard of review. Akron Ceittx°e Plaza, L.L.C. v.
Sumrnat Ctye M ofRevisiort,, .128 Ohio St.3d 145, 20.7.0-0h!,0-5035, 942 N.E.2d 1054,
¶ io. The Ohio Supreme Court has held that in iiiterpretlng a statute, a court must
first look to the language of the statute it self. See. $per€cer u. Freight Handlers, Inc.,
a3i Ohio SL3d 316, 2o-m-Ohgo--^8os 964 N-E.2d ^^:3% 1 16^ Words used in a statute
must be read in context and accorded their normal, usual, and customary meaning.
R.C. 1.42, If thewords in a st:at^-te are °^free £roffa ambiguity and doubt, and express
plainly, clearly and distinctly, the sense of the law-makang body, there is no occasion
to resort to other ^^^^^s of interpretation." State . v. flairstan, ^oi Ohio Sta3d 308,
2004-^^^^^^969^ 8o4 NX.2d 471, 112 quoting Slingluff v, Weaver, 66 Ohio St. 621,
64 N.E. 574, (iqo2)9 pa.^ra^^^ two of the syllabus. '€An unambiguous statute is to be
10
Appx. 54
ORIo FrM'i° DISTR1Cr COURT OF APPEALS ^ ^ ^ ^^ ^ ED.
5 2013
applied, ^ot. interpre^ed.'Sears ve Wei"Ier, .143 OhiP St. 312, 5,5 N.R.2d 413 (1944)r
paragraph five of the syllabus.
11[21) uil is only where the words of a statute are ambiguous, are based
upon an uncertain meaning, or, if there is an apparent ^^ntliet of some provisions,
that a court has the right to interpret a statute." Bz^^"ks v. Ohio State Univo, m Ohio
APP•3d 342, 349, 676 N.E.2d 162 (i^th DisU9g6). A statute is ambiguous where its
language is susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation. In re Baby Boy
Brooks, 136 Ohio ,^ppe3d 824, 829, 737 N,E.2d i^6q- (ioth Mst.,2ooo). " When a
statute is subject to more than orae interpretation, courts seek to interpret the
statu'^or.v pro-v-lslon in a manner that most readily furthers the legislative purpose as
reflected in the ward1ng used in the leglslationo' " AT&TCommunica^^^^^^ of ^^^io,
Inc. v. Lynch, 132 Ohio Ste3d 92, 2012-Ohlo-i97 a9 969 N.&2d 11.66, 1 18, quoting
State ex ^eL Toledo Fdison. Cb, M ClYglen 76 Ohio Sx.3d 5o8, 513, 668 N.E.2d 498,
(1996). In interpreting an ambiguous st-atute„ a court may inquire iflito the legislative
intent behiqd the statute, its legislative history, public policy, laws on the same or
similar subjects, the consequences of a particular interpretation, or any other factor
identified in R-C. -ie49. ^^e Toledo Edison, 76 Ohio St.3d at 53.3°514g 668 NoE:2d 49&
Furthermore, when interpreting a statute, courts must avoid unreasonable or absurd
r^s-ulfs. State ex rel. Asti v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs., 107 Ohio St.3d 262, 200,5Ohio-6432, 838 N.E.2d 6,8y 11 2-8.
^^^^) R.C. 37221,24 provides in pertinent par'c.
(A) No person or government entity shall retaliate agai . nst an
employee or another individual used by the person or government
entity to perform anywork or services who, in good faith, makes a
^eport of suspected abuse or neglect of a resident or
Appx. 55
^^io ^iRST DIS'Y`PUCr COURT OF APPEALS I ENTERED
013 misappropriation of the property of a resident; indicates an
lntentiora.to make such a report; provides information during an
in-vY^^^gatlon of suspected abuse, neglect, or misappropriation
conducted by the director of health; or participates in a hearing
conducted under sectiOn 3721.23 of the Revised Code or in any
other admiriist^atlve or judicial proceedings pertaining to the
suspected abuse, neglect, or misappropriation. For purposes of
-klias division, retaliatory actions include discharging, demoting, or
transferring the employee or other ^emn, preparing a negative
work performance evaluation of the employee or other person,
reducing the beg^efits, pay, or work privileges of the ernplovee or
other person, and any other action intended to retaliate against the
employee or other person.
1123) A-"tec^ reading the statute, we agree ''.th Hul.sm^^er that the plain
language of R.C. 3721..24(A) forbids retaliation "agalnst an employee or another
individual used by the person or govemment entity to perform any work or services
who, in good faith, makes or indicates an, i^^ention to make arepoat of suspected
abuse or neglect of a resident # -* * 99 `l"he statute ^^oAdes proteLtiogi for any reports
of suspected abuse and neglect that are made or anteixded to be ^a,de, not just those
reports that are made or intended ta^ ^e made to the Director of ^^altho
{4124^ Had the legislature meant to limit the protection afforded to only
reports of suspected abuse or neglect made t6 the Director of Health, it could have
easfly done so by either directly inserting the words "sto the Director of Health" after
the word "repart,' by referencing R.C. 372.1.22 in co^junctio^ %ith ^^^ort.x or by
referring to the report made as one specified under R.C. Chapter 3721, The
12
Appx. 56
01110 FIRST DISTR[C°'C` COURT OF APPEALS
ENTERED
25 2013
legislature, however, did not employ these words aa^d we may not add them to the
statute. See State u. Taniguchi, 74 Ohio St.3d 154, 156, 656 ME2d 1286 (1995)
(holding that "a court should give effect to the words actually employed in a statute
and should not delete words used, or insert words not used, in the gt^^^e of
interprethig the statute.9P)s see also W^chend,^rf,v^ Shaver, 149 Ohio St:^ 231, 236m37,
78 N.E.'"d 370 (g^^^)^
f125^ ^er-ause the statute is unambiguous and does not lirft3t reports of
suspected abuse or neglect to only those reports made or intended to be made to the
Director of IIealtki, we ^^^ed -not look to R.C 3721.22 and 3721.23 for assistance in
gnt^^prethig the statute. See State ex rel, .^.^ennatin u. Klopfleisch, 72 Ohio Sto3d 58i.9
585t 651 N,&2d 995 (1995) (the in pa^i materia rule may only be used in interpreting
statutes where some doubt or ambiguity exists). Because Htlsmeyex need not report
suspected abuse or neglect of a nursing home resident to the Ohio Director of I-^^^lth to
state a ^la€rn ^r retaliation under R.C. 372-1.24} the trial court erred in dismissing her
retaliation claim under R.C. 372L24 against Hospice, Killian, and Brookdale on th^^
basis.
(11261 Brookdale additionally argues that Hulsmeyer's retaliation claim
fails as a rnatter of law because Hiilsmeyer has failed to allege that she was 'Used byx^
Brookdale to perform any work or ^^^^^^^. R.C. 372-1.24 provides a cause of action
for an ^ernployee or another a^sdi-vidual used by the person or govemment entity to
perform any w-ork or servaces" who is terminated for reporting suspect^d abuse and
neglect. After reviewing the, allegations in her complaint, however, we find that
Hulsmeyer has alleged sufficient facts to withstand ^^^^Kdale`s motion to dismiss.
Hulsmeyer alleged that Brookdale used Hospice nurses in ^on,junction, with its own
staff to provide patient qRre at its 1ong-term care facility in several ways.
13
Appx. 57
O&no FIRaT DISTRICI" Couwr oF APfl'Ems
EN°^^^E D
--^^^^ 2013
11271 First, she alleged that she was used by Br€^okdale to oversee the
care for certain residents and to monitor the care of other raurses providing care for
those resadents. She further. alleged that she also attended a meeting at Brookdale'^
facility to consult with Brorkdalets staff and the patl^^^s family to ensure the patient
was receiving proper ^aree These facts were sufficient to uqthstand Brookdale's
motion to dismiss.
(1(28^ Because R.C. .^^21o24 does not limit reports of suspected abuse and
neglect to onIy those reports made to the Ohio Director of Health, and because
Hulsmeyer has pleaded sufficient facts to state a claim against Hospice, Killian, and
Brookdale, we sustain her first assignment of error.
Public Policy Claim
(1(291 In her second assignment of error, Hulsm+^^er argues that the trial
court erred in dismissing her claim for wrongful distharge in violation of public
policy against Hospice on the basis that she had an adequate remedy available
pursuant to R.C. ^721o24 and thias, could not meet the j^.^rspardy element of her claim,
fl(301 In order to state a claim for varongfW diseharge in violation of
public po1iqv.9 a plaintiff must show:
(I) That a clear public policy existed and was manifested in a
state or fed^rg constitution, statute or administrative
regulation, or in the common law (the P-tarzty element), (2) That
dismissing ernploy^^s under circumstances like those involved
in the plaintiffs dismissal would jeopardize the public policy.
((the jeopardy element)^ ^^^ The plalntifFs dismissal was
motaV,ated by conduct related to the public policy (the r-au^atiop.
element); and (4) The employer la6ked overriding legitimate
14
Appx. 58
^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^oL^^^ ^^^Pr&^ I ENTERED
2 5 201^ ^
business justification for the dismissal (the overriding
justificat^on element).
Collins v. .^i7k-ana, 73 Ohio St.3d 65, 69-7o, 652 N.&^^ 653 (1995).. The first two
eI^^ents-the clarity element aiid the jez^^a-rd^ ^^^^^nt--are questions of law to be
determined by the court, while the third and fourth e3.em^nts-^^e causation element
and the oweaiiding business yu^tificataoii eaement----are s^^^stiom of fa^t for the trier
of fact. id.
11311 In Dolan v. St. M^^^ Home, 153 Ohio APp>3d. 441s2003-Ohio-•
3383a 794 NoE,2d 716 (ist Dist.) this court foilowes^ the Ohio Supreme ^urt's
decision in Wiles u. Medina Auto Parts, 96 Ohio St.3d 241, 2602-$Jhao-3994x 773
N.Eo2d 526. We held ttaat because the aea^^^dies provided by R.C. 372-1.24 were
sufficient to vindicate the "public policy embodied. in R.C. ^bapter 372x Of Pxzs^^cting
the rights of n"ursiiig-k€ome residents and of others who vvrould report violations of
those raghts,^^ the public policy expressed in R.C. Chapter 372-1 would not k^^
jeopardized by the lack of a common--^^w publicmpolicy claim. Iri.. at 1 17. Because
liu^smeyer has a remedy by way of a claim for retaliation under R.C. 3721.24, the
trial court properly dismissed her claim for wrongful discharge in iriolatgoz^ of public
policy. We, therefore, overrule her ^^^^^d assignment of error.
^^^^^^^io^
fII321 In conclusion, we affirm the portion of the trial court's judgment
dismissing Hulsmeyer's ptxblic policy claim, but we reverse that portion of its
judgment dismissing Hulsmeyerss clahra for retaliatir^^^ under R.C. 3721.24. We,
therefore, remand this cause forf^^^r proceedings ^c^^^^^^en^ with this opinion and
the law. We recognize that oiar resolution of Hulsmeyer's first assignment of error
conflicts with the ^^ghtli District Court of Appeals in Arsham-Ba°ena^^r u. Grr^nde
a^
Appxm S9
^^^^o FiRs'° DISTRICT ^OURTO.F.e''PEAIS
ENTERE
D
25" 20i3
PoantHeal^h Carex 8th Daste ^^iyahoga No. 74835, ^^00 OhicsApp, LEXIS3i64 (Ju1^
3-1, 2ooo)a We, therefore, certify to the Supreme Court of Ohio, pursuant to Section
3(B)(4), .{xticIe IV, Ohio Constitution, the following issue for review and finax
d-eterminafion. '5^^st an employee or another andividual used by the person or
gov^^^en^ entfty to perform any work or services make a report or iras^^^^e an
intention to report suspected abuse or ^egled of a nursing home resident to the Ohio
^^^edor of Health to state a claim for ^et-al^ation under R.C. 3e21.24(AT
Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and cause rema^^^ed^
HE, NDON, PaJep CUNNrNGaAm and I ASCHER, JJx^ ^OMM
Please n®te,
'I'h^ court has recorded its own entry this date.
16
AppxR 60
^^URT OF COMMON PLEAS
^^^LT^^ ^^^^^^ OHIO
^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
CASE No. A1201578
^LAIN3'^
JUDGE JEROME METe ^ ^^e
avsu
ENTRY GRANTING ^^^^^ ^^^^^cz
HOSF°^^F, OF SOUTUWES'I` OHIOp .^^^ ET
AJX^f
^^^^^^NTS4
OF SOUTHWMT OHIO AND JOSEPH
KJlaLuNs^ ^onoN To DISmLsS "^
GRANTwG .AN PA..6k A. AND DENYBqW.X' IN PART
DEFENDANT BROO70DALE SENIOR LMNG,
INCe'S MOTION TO DISMISS
This matter came before the ^auft on Defendaatss motion to dismiss. The Co€^ has
reviewed the br^efs, the complaint, and has heard the ^rgummt^ of counsel in chambers, For the
reasons ^^^t follow, the CouA hereby grants the motion of Defendants Hospice of Southwest
Ohio and Joseph ^Man and grants in ^al and denies
in ^^ the motion of defendant ^rookdale
Senior Living.
L PLACNTIFF'S COMPLAINT
,^laintiff Patricia I^ulsm^^^r alleges that ^^ is a registered nurse and former employee of
Defendant Hospice of Southwest ^hiob In.c.3 W Hmlxneyer^ ^^^^^^ that she was ^^^gfuU^
^^rmineted f-rom her position as Team Manager for reporting ^^^cted abuse of one of
Broakda.l^^s patiea^ to her emptoyer} 14c^^^^^^, and to the patient's faMi^^^^
^ ^omp^aint, T" 1,
2 Ic^. at 12 1-27.
Appx. 61
^laktiffS Complaint 112S five CIDUrI.tSo Cotnts I and 11 are for r^taliation in violation of
R.C. 372 L24 ag^^ ^^^endants Hospice and Killian r^^^tively. Count .^ is for wrongful
di9:har^^ in ^^^ation of public policy against Hospice. Count W is for
tortious interference
with a business relationship against D^^^^dant Brorakda.fle and Count V Li for r^^iafion in
violation of R.C. 37210^4 against B.rookdale.
MOTION To Dismss
A motion to dismiss ^s ap.^oce^.^l m^^.a^.sm that t^ the sufficiency of a cc^r^pla^.t,^
When a^er-iding a motion to dismiss under Civ. R. 12(B)(6), courts are confined to the allegations
in the camplai^ and cannot consider outside materi,a1St4 In rs_rder for the Court "to grant a
motion to dismiss for Wure to swe a claim, it must appew 'beyond d€^ubt that the P1^^^iff can
prove no set of facts in support of [her] claim which ^^Wd entitle [her] to ^^^^f "^ When a
motion to dismiss is filed, "all the factual allegations of the ^^mp^^^t must be taken as true and
aU reasonable inferences must be drawn in favor of the
nonm^^^ pa^."6
av RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF R.^^ ^^21a24
Plaintiff brings a eI^m for r^^ia^^^ in violation
of R.C. 3721.24 against all Defendants.
R-C. 3721.24 provides
(A) No person or ,^^^emmea^^ ^^^^ sMl r^tahate against
an Omp^^yee ^sr
another andavidua1 used by the ^^on or go'^emment entity to perform
any work or services who, in good faith, makes
a report of suspected
abuse or neglect of a resident or .^^sappa^oprzation of the property of a
resident; i-ndi^atm an intention to make such a report; provides
3 ala^e ex rela Hamon v. Guernsey County Br^ ofCommrs
(I992), 65 Ohio St, 3d 545,
548.
4
'Byrd v. Faber (1991), 57 Ohio St,3d 56, 60, 565 N.E.2d 584, 589 (quoting
Univ. ^'^smmni^ ^`ea^a^s Union (1975), 42 Obis^
St. 2d 242, 245, `^^.C^^ 2s^ 223, ^24p 327
N^RM 753, 755^
" Byrd, 57 Ohio St.3d at 60, 565 N.F.Id at 599.
2
Appx. 62
•
J
`
I
informatlon during ^ ^vcstigation of suspected abuse, neglect, or
mi^aPPrOPriRtaOn conducted by tte director of health; or participats in
a hea°ar,g cOnducted under ^ectlon. 3 72113 Of the Revised Code or in
an^ Other a1minist^ative or judicial Pro^^ed^^^^ ^^^nmg to the
suspected abuse, neglect, or. ma^apprcsp.^atiam For purposes of this
davisicsn^ retalatory actions include discharging, demotinz, or
^sf^^^^ the employee or other penon9 ^^^^^ a negative work
^^onnaa^^ evaluatiOa^ Of the emp!oyec or other perwn,
red-acing the
benefits, pay, or ^^rk Priv1leges Of the emPlOY^e Or 011^er person, and
axy other action i^.t^.^.^^E to retaliate ^.,^a^ the empl^ay^ or other
1^mon.
(C) AnY^ ^^^on hu a cause of action against a pemon or ^^vernment entity
f()r harm resulting from violation of division (A) or (J3) of this ^ecqizan.
If it finds that a violation 1m Occ€rred, the court may award damages
and order injunctive relaef. `The c€^^ may award court costs and
reasonable €attomey'^ ^^^^ to the p^vQiu^ party.
Ms. Hulsmeyer arg:a.Os tllat sh^ is Protected under the statute for her conduct in reporting
suspected abuse ^O her emPloye.^ and the pat€en#'s fam1y and alleges that she ^^ ^^^^ a cause
^f ac.ti^n unr^er R.C 372124 and ^^^^^^the ^^^^n to dismiss should be derag.ed.
To establish a prima fa^^^ case under RX, 3721 .24, an ^mployee, must show6`(1 ) that the
en'P1IIYM el}^^^^ in 11 protected activity; (2) that the emple^^^^ was the sub,^ ^^ of adverse
emPIOgment action; and (3) that a causal link existed between the protected activity and the
adverse action.'^ Bu% R.C. 3721.24 only applies to those who
report suspected abuse €^^^^^inge
hO^e resid^^^ to the Ohio Diinctor of Heahhe^
Uiidef R.C. 3721.22(A)x a licensed
health Professional is obliged to report
^^^^^ abu^le Or neglect "to the r^^^^ of hca3Yh,g' Sections B and c
describe voluntary reporting to the `adi^^^tor of hea}th.- The lnterrer^dng
7 DOI&n R St i^ary's Memorial Home, 153 Ohio App. ad, 441, 1 19 (V'Dist.),
9 See, ad. at 116a
Arsham6Bronaa^^ v Cire^^^^ Poia^t Health Care Communa
App. LEXIS 3164, *21 (8^ D1^), ^"^ 2000 Ohio
3
Appx. 63
s#ahft„ R.C. 3721.23^ refers to the duties of the director of health to
^^^^sti^e aB^^ation^, Reading these statutes together, we believe that
R.C, 3721.24 forbids ^^^^^^^n for xepoa-ts, wheher obligatory or
voluntary, made only to the da=tor of health pursuant to kC. 3721 e22o
Any reports to others, such as to appellant's employer, of suspected
resident abuse or neglect do not qualify for proY.m^^^ under R.C,
3721.24(A)e'
Plaintiff arp^s that the Court should not apply Arksham-^^^^ner to this case because it is
aanrep€srt4 not binding, and has no precedential valuc. However, in Davis v, Marr#at
Intera^^onat Inc. "., the 60' Circuit U. S. Court of.r^^^als analy^^^ ^^^^^-Brenraer while
applying Ohio law to a case similar to this one. The & Circuit, in applying theArshammBrenner
case said
In [Arshaaaa6Brem;rl, much ag in this [case], the director of nursing for a
hulth care organization reported below=standard c^ to her employers
and did not report anyffia^^ to the Ohio Department of Health. In nject€^^
the resulting ^^^^^ claim, the ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ court noted that §
3721,22(A) obliges licensed health professionals to ^epo€t instances of
abuse to the Director of Health, subsections B and C of that provision
estabEsh volun^ reporting for others to the Director of Health and §
3721.23 describes the duties of the Director of Health to investigate these
Oegatlons. in tMs cssntex-4 the court remoned$ the next statute, § 3721.24,
must be read a-s requiring an individual to report abuse to the D1^^tor'of
Health to obtain protection from discharge. '
This is far fr^
" m an unreasonable ^^^mtalion of the statuteo The Ohio
Supreme Court recently observed that it was "'mindful ffiat all sututes
which relate to the same general subject matter must be read in paa°i
material" e o e , and has previously consiraed whi^^eb1^^^r statutes
narrowly, ... . As this court is sitting in diversity and as. we have no
evidence, much less persuasive evidence, that the Ohio Supreme Court
would ^^^stm^ this statute differently, we are obliged to hold that §
3721.24(A). requires the plaintiff to report instances of abuse in nursing
hom. es to the Ohio Director of Health. Because ^`3avasss motion to amend
does not state that she reported (or intended to report) the alleged abuse to
^^^hamnBrenner, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 3164 at * 21.
2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 21789, *6 (6'b Cir).
4
Appxm 64
* • • ° S
public authorities, the motion was futile and accordingly was properly
€1a.stnissed, ^ ^
Furthermore, the First District Court of Appeals read the statutes together when an3.yz1ng
a similar case to deter-mine if a Plaintiff had met her burden to on a ^^^judgment mot:on°
In Dolan v. St. Mary"s Memorial Home 12, the Court said
R.C° 3721.22(A) requires a licensed h^alt^ ^mfessional to report
suspected abuse of nurszngLLhssme residents to the Obio Director n# ffealth..
R.C. 3721.24(A) provides that "no person or gt^^^^ment entity Shan
retaliate agaimt an employee ^ ^ ^ who, in good faith, makes a report of
suspected neglect or abuse of a resident * * * 9k R.C. 3721.24(C) provides
that "any person has a cause of action against any person or g®^emment
entity for harm resulting ftom violation of division (A) If a court
fmds that a violation has occurred, it may order in^^c^^oe relief and award
d^^es, c^a^°t costs ^.^. reasonable ^,tt^rrt^.ey ^'ee,.^^
Therefore, based on the cases above, the ^^tzt finds that in order to have a cause of
acta.ora,for retaliation under R.C. 3721.24y a Plaintiff must allege that she reported or intended to
report the suspected abuse to the Ohio Director of Health. Plaintiff does not allege in her
Complaint that sho reported or intended to report the sa^^pectc€1 abuse tc) the Ohio Director of
Healtli. Thr;reforo, the claims of Plaintiff for r^taliafiorz under R.C. 3721.24 against Defendants
Hospice, ^Uian, and Brookdalcf which are Counts 1, Uy and V, are hereby dismissed for fa.€lum
to state a.c1a1^ upon wMeh relief cm be gmteai°
b. WRONGFUL DHSCHARGF, IN VIOLATIl3^ OF ^^^O PUBLYC POLICY
In ^ount. III of Plaintiff s Complairita she alleges ^ongfxl discharge ln violation of
public policy against ^^^endant 1-lospice. This claim also cannot stand.
" Id. at * 7m8.
12 153 Ohs.c) App°3d 441 (1" Dist.)°
" Id. atT, 16°
5
Appxm 65
'^ public policy embodied in R.Co Chapter 3721 of protecting the rights
of nursing-^om^ residents and of ^^en who would report violations of
those rights would not be jeopardized in the absence of a corrmonm1aw
wron,^^-di^^^^e tort. Consequently, [^lair^^f) may not recover in a
^^^gfu^^^^^^^e action ^^^ the public policy is bmd on the reporting
^ff abuse in a nursing home, ^^^^ remedy lies in an ^^^ for retaliatory
discharge ^ummt to RX. 3721.24.14
Since a oAtut^^ remedy exists that adequately protects society's ^^^r^^t, the remedy lies
in an action under the statute and not in an action for wrongfW discharge in violation of Ohio
public policy. Therefore, the claim must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon w^ch
aeiiefcan be granted. Count M of Plaintiff ^ complaint is thereforc dismissed,
C. TE'1RTI^^^ ^NT^^ERK(^CF. WITH B'€^STN^^S RE&^ATIONSI^IP
Count IV of ^^^ntiff s complaint alleges t+^^^^us interference with business relationship
^^^^^^ ^e&nd^^ Brookdale. sGea^^^^^^ a claim for torao^ ^^erfema^^e with a business or
economic relationship requires proof that gone who, without a privilege to do so, induces or
otherwise purposely causes a third party not to enter into, or continue, a business relationship
with another, is liable to the other for the harm caused thereby.""
Brockdale argues that this claim must be dismissed because ^^^okd^^ has a business
relationship with Hospice and was privileged to speak with Hospice about Ms, HulsmayerR^
conduct md so was protecting a legitimate business interest. However, the Court is confined to
the aegations in the Complaint when ruling on a motion to ^sniass^ Plaintiff alleges sufficient
facts in her Complaint to support a claim for tortious interf^^en^^ with a business reYationship,
'4.1d. at 11 7,
15 Bauer -v CoanmercW Alumaraum Cookvarey 140 Ohio App,^d 193, 197 ^6" Dist 2000^
(quoting Brahim v. Ohio College ofPodaatric Medzcxne (1994), 99 Ohio App, 3d 479, 483^ 651
N.E.2d 30.)
6
Appx. 66
,a .
Plaintiff alleges
Brookdale int^nticsnaly and improperly interfered with the business
relationship between Ms. ^^^^^^^r and. Hospice, resWting in her
tetnination. Bmzkdas^ ^ angry that W Hia1^^^^^^ reported swpected
abuse and/or neglect to Daughter, insisted that Hospice ^^ii-iate Ms.
Hulsmcycx ac, a result, and threatened to terminate its business relationship
with Hospice to force Hospice to terminate Ms. Hulsmeyer. Brookdale
was motivated by a des^^^ to protect its ^^^^^on avc.r ^^^g and
protecting its elderly residents, ^^^^ is ^ontrary to the interests ^^ society
and Brookd^^^s residents. Brookdale was a third party to the business
relationship between Ms. Haaismeyer and Hospice. ... Brookdale .Fad no
privilege to interfere with the business relationsh€p:16
.^^^u ing al of those facts as true, as the Court must for a m'otion to dismissy PWntiff has
alleged sufficient facts to support a claim for tortgous interference with a b^siness relationship.
'^refore, Defendant Broakdate's motion to dismiss the tortious interfereucc claim is hereby
denied.
111.
CONCI^^^ION
As detailed above, the motion of Defendants Hospice of Southwest Ohio and Joseph
Killian to di-smiss is hereby gran3ed.. °rhe motion of Defendant Brookdale to dismiss is granted in
part and denied in part. Counts 1, 11y 1115 and V of Plaan^ff s Complaint are disr€issed 'vn'tho^.^t
p^^^^^^e for ^lur.^ to state a claim pursuant to Cav. R. 12(3)(6). Count IV of Plaintif-Ps
ENTERED
^ompW^^ remains active.
^^^^EREI).
JUL 2 3 Z01Y
cco c+^^^l. of record
r6 PlaaWdr^ Complaint, 56a59.
7
Appx. 67
1.42 Coaxsmon and tc-chnacal a^seEge, OH ST § 1.42
Baldwin'^ Ohio Revised Code Annotated
General Provisions
Chapter i> Definitions; Rules of ^on^traction (Refis & Annos)
Statutory Provisions (Refs & An.n^^)
R.C. § 1,42
1.42 Ca^^on and ^^ch'nica:1. usage
Words and phrases shall be read in context and ^^^^trued according to the rules of ^^^ar and
common usage. Words and phrases that have acquired a technical or. particuiar. meaning,
whether by legislative definition or othenvise9 shall be construed accordingly.
CREDIT(S)
(1971 H 607, eff. 1a3a72)
Notes of Decisions (i. 17)
R.C. § 1,42s OH ST § 142
Cw
,Tent tbzou^^ Files I to 94 of the 130dh ^A (I013-2914)o
- ----.
2014 11,onisc+n Reuters ao claim to ^^rigi^^l U.S.
Go^r^^^^^ent^^c^rks.
End of Document
;,
3e
°^.
t)
k:^.;.^.
Appx. 68
I .49 Aids in can^tructaora of ambg^^ou^ statutes, OK ST § 1.49
Baldwin's Ohio Revised Code Annotated
General. Provisions
Chapter i. Definitions; Rules of Construction (Refs & Annos)
Statutory Pro,^~%^^^^^ (Refs & Amios)
R-Ce § 1.49
1.49 Aids in construction of ambiguous ^tatutes
If a statute is ambiguous, the ^ourt, iia detennining the intention of the legislature, may consider
among other matters:
_ (A) The object sought to be attained;
(B) The circumstances under which the statute was enacted;
(C) The legislative history9
(D) The commori. law or f'^^^^ stataat^ry provisions, inclu'din^ laws upon the same or similar
subjects;
^.^--) The consequen.^^sof a particular construction;
(F) 1'he adrnhaisdrat^^^^ construction of thestatizte.
CREDIT(S)
(19711I 60'7$ eff. 1;--3-72)
Notes of Decisions (99)
R.C. § 1.49, OH ST § 1.49
C ^^^^t, through F^^^s I to 94 of the l3Qg C3A^:^0l3 201 4J._. . _.. .
End ^^^^cament
.
..
. ... . . ... . . .. .... ..1^-sr, , ....... .,.
'^` 1-€^^14 Th^^^onReuiem No cla`tra to ori^inal.U&
Government Works.
, ..J
:..^.1
....
'
_... .J . .y,J'^..^..,.f'
..,, . . ,.
Appx. 69
3721.17 Graevance pra^edure; procedures for review of,.., OH ST § 3721.17
Baldwin's Ohio Revised Code . ^.^an^tated
.n^^^ XX1V[I. ^^^^th--^^^ety-LLMoral.s
Chapter 3 721. Rest Homes and Nursing Homes (ReAs a^ ^^^^)
Patients' Rights
R.C. § 3721.17
3721.17 Grievance proced€iz e, procedures for review of compWnts'by Ohio commission on
aging; penalties; other remedies; cause of actioii ^^^ctive. September 29, 2013
(A) Any resident who believes that the resident's rights uiider sections 3721.10 to 3721.17 of the
Revised Code have been violated may file a grievance under procedures adopted Tsursuaiit to dlvision
(A)(2) of section 3721.12 of the Revised Code.
When the grievance committee determines a violation of sectle^^^^ 3721.10 to 3721.17 of the Revised
Code has occurred, it shal notify ^e adinanlstrator of the home. If the violation cannot be corrected
wi tbin. ten days, or if ten days have elapsed Vkth^-at correction of the violation, the grievance committee
shall refer the matter to the d^^^ ent of heaJ.th.
(B) ^^ person who believes ^that a resident's rights under sections 372 1.10 to 3 721.17 of the T^evl.sed
Code have been violated may re}^o-rt or cause reports to be made of the info^mation directly to the
department of health. No person who files a report is liable for ^-ivll, damages resulting froin the report.
(C)(1) Within th€-rty days of receiving a complaint under this section, the department of healtb- sl-iall
investigate anv complaint referred to it by a home's grievance committee and any com, plaa.nt from any
source that a1leges that the horn^ provided substantially less than adequate care or treatment, or
substantially unsafe conditions, or, ^^^ seven days of receiving a complaint, refer it to the ^ttomey
general, iT'the att^nmey general agrees to investigate within thirty days.
(2) Within ^Mrty days of receiving a complaint under this section, the departra^^^^t of health may
investigate any alleged violation of sections 3721.10 to 3721.17 of the Revised Code, or of rules,
policies, or procedures adopted pursuant to those sect.ionss not covered by division (^)(1) of this section,
or it may, witl^iin seven days of receivirig a complaint, refer the complaint to the grievance committee at
the home where the Oeged violation occurred, or to the attorney general °aT'the attorney general agrees to
1nvestiga^e,Mthin thirty days.
(D) df, aRer an investigation, the department of health ^`€^ads probable cause to believe that a violation of
sections 3721.10 to 3721.17 of theRevl.sed Code, c^rof rules, policies, or procedures adopted pursuant to
those sectgons,ba,^ ^^^uffed at a home that is certified tmder the medicare or medicaid program, lt shall
cite one or more fmddl.ngs or deficiencies under sections 5165.60 to 5165.89 of the Revised Code. If the
home is not so certified, the department shall hold an. adjudicative hearing within ffiirty days under
Chapter 119. ^^^^ Revised Code.
2
c, daE?V#
` d ^ ^.^. G;3'."^^`m^`i?''.'sC1;:":^:",^.
^
APPX® 70
3721.17 ^^evance procedure; procedures for ^eviea^ of..., OH ST § 3721.17
(E) TJpori. a finding at an adjudicative hearing under division (D) of this section that a violation of
sections 3721.10 to 3721.17 of the Revised Code, or of rules, policies, or procedures adqpte^ purs€^^^
thereto, has occurred, the department of health shall make an order for compliance, set a reasonab1.e time
for compliance, and assess a fine pursuant to division (F) of this section. The ^^^^ shall be paid to the
general revenue fund only if compliance with the order is not shown to have been made within ffie
reasonable time set in the order. The department of health may issue an order prohibiting the
continuation of any violation of sections 3 72 l. ,1. 0 to 3 721. 17 of the Revised Code.
Findings at the hearings conducted under this section mav be appealed pursuant to Chapter 119. of the
Revised Code, except that an appeal may be made to the court of common pleas of the coiinty in. Whgch
the home is located.
'l'l^e d^partinent of health sha1 initiate proceedings in. coart to collect any fine assessed under ^^
section that is unpaid t1firty days after the violator's final appeal is exl-iausted.
i,i ) Any home found, pursuant to an aq^udlcatlon hearing under diNision (D) of this sectlorl, to have
violated sections 3721.10 to 3721.17 of the Revised Code, or Twes, policies, or procedures adopted
pursum:^ to those sections may be fined not less than one hundred nor moz^^ ^ five hundred dollars for
a first offense. For each subsequent offense; the home may be fmed not less than two hundred nor more
than one th^^^^id dollars.
A violation of sections 3721.10 to 3721.17 of the Revised Code is a separate offense for each day of the
Vlolation and for each reslaea^^ who claims the violation.
(G) 1'^^^ bo^e or employee of a bome shall retaliate against any perss^n. who:
(1) :^ ^^^^^ ^^^ any nght set ^orth. in sections 3 72 l. .1. ^ to 3 72l. ,1 7 of thxe Revised Code, including, but not
limited to, filing a complaint with the home's grievance committee or reporting an alleged vlolation. to
the departme-nt of heoitli}
(2) Appears as ^ writness in any hear'mg conducted under this section or section 3721.162 of the Revised
Code;
(3) Files a ei-vil action alleging a vaQlatlon. of sections 3721.10 to 3721,17 of the Revised Code, or
notifies a county prosecuting attor^^^ or the attc^^^^ general of a, possible violation of sections 3721.10
to 3721.17 of the Revised Code.
If7 under the procedures outlined in this ^^cEon, a home or its employee is found to ba^^ retaliated, the
violator may be fmcd up to one thousand do1lan.
(H) When legal action is indicated, any evidence of criminal activity found in an investigation under
division (C) of ffi.^^ section shall be given to the prosecuting attorney in the ^otmty z11 which the home is
located for investigation.
.,
,301 1,
.,t..s
al U.S. (s V::, ^.
;'.
_
Appx. 71
3721.17 ^^evanve p^^^edurey procedures for review zaf,.., OH ST § 3721.17
(1)(1)(a) Any resident whose rights under sections 3721.10 to 3721.17 of the ^^vi^e'd Code are violated
has a cause of action against any person or horn^ committing the violat.ion,
(b) An action under division (l)(l.)(a) of t1ais sectaon, rnay be commenced by the resident or by the
resident's l^gal guardian or other l^g-Jlv authorized representative on behalf of the resident or the
resident's ^state. If the resident or the resident's legal guardian or other legally authorized repr^^en ' tative
is unable to commence an acti.tsn under that division on behalf of the resldenty the fo1lgwing persons in
the following order of priority have the right to and may commence an action under that division on
behalf of the resident or the resident's ^^tate.
(i) The resident's sp€r~e;
(ii) -fhe resident's parent or adult ebi1d;
(iii) `lhe resident's guardian if the resident is a minor child;
(3,v) The resident's brother or sister;
(v) Tb.e resident's niece, nephew, aunt, or uncIe.
(c) Notwithst^idang any law as to priority of persons entitled to commence an actaon., if more than one
eligible person ^ffiin the sanie level of priority seeks to conmeri^e an act1oii on behalf of a resident or
the resident's estate, the court slr.all determine, in. the best interest of the resident or the resident's estate,
the indavidwi.l to commence the actiono A ^ouit's determination under this division as to the person to
commence an action on behalf of a resident or the resident's estate shall. ^^r another person from
commencing t1^e action on 1r+ehall`^f the resident or the resident's ^stdtee
(d) '1'he r^suit of an action commenced pursuant to divisioii (l)(l)(a) of this section by a person
authorized i:¢nder division (1)(1)(b).of this section shall bind the resident or the resident's estate that is
the subject of the action.
(e) A cause of action under division (i)(l)(a) of this section shall accrue, and the stabAte of limitations
applicable to that cause of actzon. shall begin to r<m,ba^ed upon the violation of a resident's rights under
sections 3721.10 to 3721.17 of the Revised Code, regardless of the party commer^cing. the action on
behalf of the resident or the resident's estate as authorized under divisions (1)(1)(b) and (c) of this
section.
(2)(a) I'he plaintiff in. an: action filed und.er division (l)(l) of this section may obtain injunctive relief
against the violation of tl-ic resident's rights. The plaintiff g^o may recover compensatory damages
based upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the violation of the resident's rights
resulted .l:rorn a negligent act or omission of the person or home and that the violation was the proximate
cause of the resident's injury, death, or loss to persoii. or property.
(b) If compensatory damages are awarded for a violation s9-ir the resident's rights, section 2315.21 of the
Revised Code shall apply to an award of punitive or ^xe-mp1ary damages for the vzolatlon.
............................................................^
` _ . . ^;^ 2 :^ a 4 ^
t ^':o,. .s^; "t Re' ;ers.
'O t^ 3^ U . ^. v ^^ 'w?, ^r a ^ ^^ } fC r4^.
^.^PXm 72
3721.17 Grievance procedure; gi^^^^^du^^^ for revaew of.,., OH ST § 3721.17
(d^ The co^ in a case i^. ^r^c^. r^^y injunctive relief is granted, may award to ^ae prevailing party
reasonable attorney's fees limited to fne work reasonably performed.
(3) Diviszon. (:f)(^)(b) of this section shal be considered to be purely remedial in operation and ^halI be
applied in a remedial manner in any civil action. in which. this section is relevant, ^^eLber the action is
pending i-n court or commenced on or after July 9, 1998.
(4) Witli€n thirty days ^^^r the filing of a complaint in an action for damages ^rouc,,,h^ against a home
under division (I){°.^)(a) of this section by or on behalf of a resident or former resident of the home, t l::ee
plai^.taff or ^laintiff s counsel shall send wii.^^n notice of the filing of the complaint to the d^partmen4 of
medicaid if the d^^^ent. has a right of rc^ov'ery under section 5160.37 of the Revised Code against
the liability of the home for the cost of medaca€.d services arising out of injury, disease, or disabil.ity of
^.^.e resident or fomiea resident.
CREDIT(S)
(2013 H 59, eff. 9-29LL13, 200214 412, eff. 11-7-02; 2001. H 94, eff. 9-5-01} 1998 11354, ^ff. 7-9-98y
1990 H 822, eff. 12-13-90y 1984 H 660; 1978 H 600)
Notes of Decisions (30)
R.C. § 3721.17, 01-1 ST § 3721.17
Current thrqRgh. Files 1 to 94 and Statewide 1:ssue 1, of the 130th GA (2013-2014)_
End of ^^cument
0 2014 T1^om^^^nlZeuterso No claim to ori^^.n^.^ U.S.
Government W^^k&
..
Y ^f^r;scn f ::.lEt.Nf:'^.
' d
i.n~f ^ i
. } E.w-.,^.
.......,.
.
. . ........ ..,....
.. ... „m.
. .. . . ., . , ^.' ;+'^'
.^^a>.
ApPx- 73
^^^^^W.
R-C. § 3721.21
Page I
Eff^ctivea September 10g 2012
Baldwin°s Ohio Revised Code A^^ot-a^d Currentness
T^^^ ^KVII, H^alth--Safety- -Mo^^s
I'm Chapter 372 1. Rest Honies and Nursing Homes (Refs & Annos)
^ ^^oils s^^^^^e and Neglect
-o-* 3721a21. Definitions
As used in sections 3721.21 to 3721.34 of the Revised Code
(A) "sLongaterm care facility'^ means either of the following:
(1) A nuning home as defined in section 3721.01 of the Revised Code;
(2) A facility or part of a facility that is certified as a skMed nursing facility or a nursing facility
under Title XV13:.C or XDC of the "Social ^^cin%ty Acto"
(B) "Residential ^^e faciliW' has the same meamug as in section 3721. 01 of the Revised Code.
(C) "Abuse" mems knowingly causing physical h.arm or recklessly causing serious physical
h^ to a resident by physical contact with th^ ^^^ident or by use of physaeg or chemical restraint, medication, or isolataon. as puni.^^ent^ for ^^co^^enience, excessively, as a substitute
for ^catm^nt, or in amoa^^ that preclude ^^^^^^^^ and 9reatnent. (D) "N^^eefF means recklessly fa.a.lang to provide a resident with any treatment, cake, gtaots5 or
service necessuy to maa.ntain. the health or safety of the resident whon the fai1u-re resalts.in se-^ous physical b.arm to the resident. "Neglect" does not include allowing a resident, at the resia
dent°s option, to receive only ^eatnaent by spz^itA. means throu gh ^rayer'in acccs^^^ewith, the
tenets of a recognized religioaas denomination.
(E) "^^^^^^opriatioe9 ^^ms depriving, defrauding, or otherwise obtaining the rea.1. or pffson.al
0 2014 Th^^^ Reuterse No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. Appx. 74
KC1§
372121
Page
'^
^^^^^ of a resident by aay m^am prohibited by the Revised Code. including violations of
Chapter 2911, or 2913 ^ of the Revised Code.
CF.) `xR^sidenf" includes a residen^ ^ati^^t^ former resident or patient or deceased resident or
pafient of a longmterm care facility or a residential care far-ila.ty.
(G) 'Thysg.cal ^^^trainf' has the same meaning as in section 3 72 1,1 0 of the, Revised Code.
(H) "sCher^cal r^sft-ainf^ has ^^ same meaning as in section 3 721,10 of the Revised Code.
(1) s^^sin,^^ and nur^ing-^^lated ^^rvices"" means the personal care services and other services
not ^^nstitating skilled nursing care that are specified in rules the director of health ^^I adopt in
accordance with Chapter 119. of the Revised Code^
(J) 's^ersonat. care ^ervices'" has the same meaning as iu section 372 1,01 of the Revised Code.
(K)(1) Except as provided in division (K-)(^) of this section, "nurse aide" meam an individ:ual
who provides nursing and nursing-^^lated ^eTvi.ces to r^siden:^^ i-n a l.orag--term care facility, either
as a member of the staff of the facility for monetary compensation or as a volunteer without
monetary compensation.
(2) `^^urse aide" does not include either of the following:
(a) A ^^ensed health professional practicing within the swpe of the professional'^ ^^^erse;
(b) An individual providing nursing and nursing-^^lat^ ^^^^^s in a religious nonmedical
h^^^ care institution, if the individual has been tminei, in the p^ciples of nonmedi.cal. care and
is recognized. by tli.^ insfitutic^n as being competent in the ^ministation €^^^e vvithin the rehw
gi^^ tenets practiced by the residents of the ^^titation..
(L) `'L€cemed hedth professionar; memis ata of the following:
(1) An occupational therapist or €^^^^^ati^nal therapy assistant li^^^sed under Chapter 4755, of
the. Revised Code;
(2) A physical therapist or physical therapy assistant licensed under Chapter 4755, of the Rem
C, 2014 Ta..a^mson YZ^uterso No Claim to Orig. US Govo Works, ' Appx. 75
R.C. § 372121
Page :^
vised Code;
(^) A p^.^sician authorized under Chapter 473 1. of the Revised Code to practice medicine and
surgery, osteopathic medicine and sur,^ery;.s^^ podiatry;
(4) A physician assistant ^^^^^zed under Chapter 4730. of the Revised Code to practice &s a
physician assistant;
(5) A registered nurse or licensed pract€cal niirse l.l^^^ed under Chapter 4723. of the Revised
Code;
(6) A social worker or independent social worker licensed under 'hapter 4757. of the Revised.
Code or a social work ass1^^^ registered tmdeT that chapter;
(7) A ^^^^ch-1^^^^ pathologist or audiologist licensed under Chapter 4753. of the Revised
Code;
^^^ A dentist or dental hygienist licensed andex Chapter 4715. of the Revised Code;
(9) An optometrist licensed under Chapter 4725, of the Revised Cod.e,
(1 .0) A pharmacist licensed under Chapter 4729. of the Revised Code;
(11) A psychologist licensed under Chapter 4732. of the Revised. Code;
(12) A chiropractor licensed under Chapter 473 4. of the 1^ .evised Code;
(13) A nursing home as^^stTator licensed or ^^mporafily licensed under Chapter 475 L of the
Revised Code;
(14) A professional counselor or ^^ofess1onal clinical counselor licensed under Chapter 4757. of
the Revised Code.
(NT) 6'Re1igi€^us nonmedical healffi care lnstltutaony' means an institution that meets or exceeds
the ^^nditions to recei^^ payment under ffic mefficue program established'ancler Title XVM of
the "Social Security Act" foz. inpatient hospiW services or postahospiY^ extended care services
0 2014 M^^on Reuters. No Cbisx to Orig. US Gov. Wbr3s. ^^Px. 76
F.
C.
§
3721.21
Page
4
fun-^shed to an indzvid^ ^-n a xeligious nonmedical h^^ care im-Litati^.^n, as defmed i-n section
1861(ss)(1) of the "Social Security Act," 79 Stat. 286 (1965), 42 U.&C. 1395x(ss)(1), as
amended.
(N) "Competency evaluation program.;' means a program ^^^gh which the competency of a
nurse aide to provide ^^smg and n^^^^^^elated services is ^^aluated.
(0) ''`Tx^ning and competency evaluation ^rogram" means aprogram of nurse aide trainjmg and
evaluation of competency to provide nuris€ng and nuxsing-^^lated services.
CREDIT(S)
(2012 H 487, eff. 9-10-12; 2005 H 66^ eff. 6-30-05^ 2000 H 403, eff. 9-27-00; 1.996 S 223, eff3m18-97; 1995 S 143, eff. 3-5a96^ 1995 H I I 7, eff. 9-24-95; 1990 H 822, eM 12-13-90)
UNCODIF:f^D LAW
2012 H 487, § 751010: See Uncodifie3. Law imd^ Ch. 3721.
MST^RICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES
Ed. Note; 3721.21 is former 3721.27, amended and zecoda.fied by 1990 118229 eff. 12-13--90y
19901=1359y 198911112.
Ed. Note: Former 3721.21 repealed by 1979 H 204, § 270, ^^ 9-1-79y 1979 S 180; 1977 H 276,
§ 1,2Ed, Note: Prior 3721.21 repealed by 1977 H 276, eff. 6-28-77, 1976 H 705.
R-C. § 3721.21, OH ST § 3721^21
^un-ent through Files 1 to 76, and 78 of the 130th GA (2013-2014)e
(e) 2014 I'homson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov.Wa^rks.
END OF DOCUMENT
, 0 2014 Thamson Reu#er& No Claim to Orig. T^S Gov. Workse
APPX. 77
R.C. § 372122
Page 1
^
Eff^efiveT [See Text A.m.^ndm^^^]
Baldwin'^ ^^o Revised Code Annotated Currentness
Title MXXVIIo Health-Safety--Masrals
'Chapter 3 72 1. Rest Homes and Nursing Homes (Refs & Aimos)
'ia Reports of Abuse an^ ^^^^^t
-o-s, 3721.22 Reports of abuse or ^^^^^^; im^^^; failure to report; false ^negaM
^on^
(A) No licensed health professional who knows or suspects ffiat a resident hm been abused or
neglected, or that a ^^sidenf^ ^^^^^^^ has been ^sapp^opr€ated, by any. individual used by a
I-on^^^^^ care facility or residential care fa^^^ to provide services to residents, s^aU fail to
report that knowledge or suspicion to the director of health.
(B) Any person, including a resi^ent, who knows or suspects that a resident has been abused or
neglected, or that a residents property has been misa^ppgopriated, by any individual used by a
l.ong-^^^ care facility or residential ^^ facility to provide services to residents, may report that
kaowiedge or suspicion to the director of health.
(C.^ Any penon who in good feffi reports s€ss^^^^^d abuse, neglect, or misapprs^piiati€^^ to the
director of hegta., provides ^^^^rmata^n during an invest€gaasan of suspected abuse, negject, or
misappropriation conducted by fae da^ec-d:or, or participates in a hearing conducted under section
3721o23 of the Revised Code is not subject to criniiual prosecution, liable in damages in a tort or
other.^ivil action, or subjeetto professional di,sciplftk-uy action ^eciause of injury or loss to person
or property allegedly arising ftom the making of the report, provision. of inf o€Mation, or parm
ti^^^^^on in the hearing.
(D) ^'.^ the director has reason to ^eh^^^ that a violation of division (A) of this section has oceain-e3, the d^^^^^^r may report the suspected violation to the appropriate professic^^ ^censing
auffiority and to the at^^ey ^^eml} county prosecutor, or other appropriate law e^'s^^^em^^^
official.
0 2014 Thomson Re-s.a^. No Claim to Orig. US ^'`iov. Works, APPX- 78
R..C. § 37^^ ^
^^^ 2
^ ^ No person, shall kn.^^ing1.^ ^^e a fal^^ allegation of abuse or neglect of a resident or
mi^^^propriation of a ^^^iden-Vs property, or knowingly swear or affirm th^ ^^ of a false alw
^^^ati^n, when the allegation is made for the purpose of inc g another,
^^DIT(S)
(1995 H 117, eff. 9-29m95; 1990 H 822., ^^ 1243 m90)
IZtSTORICAL ANTI) STAMTORY NOTF^
Ede Note: Fonner 3721.22 repealed by 1979 H 204, § 270^ eff. 9-1m79; 1979 S 180; 1977 11276^
§ 1,2.
R.C. § 3721.22, OH ST § 3721.22;
^^urrent through Files 1 to 76, and 78 of the 130th GA (2013m2014)^
^^^ 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to OTiae US Gove Works.
^ OF ^^CUMEN`f
0 2014 Thomson Reutm" No C1aim ^ Origo US Gov. Works. Appx. 79
^^^^VV.
R-C. § 3721.23
Page I
^
^ffective'e October 16,2009
Baldwin.as Ohio Revised Code Amatated Currentness
Tifle ;^XXV1I.Hea:lth--^^^ety--:^oral.^
^ Chapter 3 72 1. Rest Homes and Nursing Homes (Refs & Annos)
-a Reports of Abna^e and iNeglect
^^ 3721.23 Investiga^^^ of allegations; fmdin^; notice
(A) The director ofh^alth shaR rece1^^, review, and investigate allegations ^^^^^e or neglect of
a resident or misappropriation ofthe property of a resident by any individual used by a long-term
care faciHty or residential care facility to pro-v-1d^ services to resa^^uts.
(B) The director shaU makv, fmdin^^ regarding a.1egetl abuse, neglect, or misappropriation of
property after doing both of the foRowing.
(1) Inv^^^gatzsig the allegation and ^etenminix^^ that there is a reasonable basis for it;
(2) Gl.vi-ag notice to the individual named in the allegation and affording the individual a reasonable opportunity for a 1^^^n&
Notice to the person named in an allegation shaU be given and the hearing shall be conducted
pursuant to rules adopted by the director under ^^ctioza. 3721.26 of the Revised Code. For purp^^^^ of conducting a hearing under this section, the director may issue su.bpoeiaas compell^g
atte^^ce of witnesses or production of documents. 'l.'h^ subpoenas shall be served in the same
mamer as -sublaoenas and subpoems duces tecum issued for a laial, of a civil act€on, in a court of
common pleas. If a porson who is,serred a subpoena faU^ to attend a heafin,^ or to produce
^^^innents, or refuses to be sw^^ or to ams^^r any questions, the d^^^ctr^r may apply to the
common pleas court of the county m which the pergon resides, or the ^^uuty in which the
longmterm care facility or residential care facility is located, for a contempt order, as in ^^ case of
a failure of a person who is served a subpoena issued by the ^^ to attend or to produr-e
documents or a ^^final of such person to testify.
0 2014 Thomson R-ei-ftm. No ^Wm to Orig. US Gov. Works. Appx. 8o
R-C.
§
3721.23
Page
2
(C)(1) ^^e director fmds that an individual used by a long-term mc f^ihty or residential care
facih^ bas neglected or abused a resident or misappropriated property of a rcs^^t the director
^haU nofify the zndividuallg the facility using the indavidua, and the attcmcy general, county
prosecutor, or other appropriate law enforcement officgal. The director also shall do the fol-
lowing:
(a) If the individual is used by a long-term care faci^i^ as a n-arsc aidco the director sMI, in
acca^rdancc,Mth section 3721.32 of the Revised Code, include in the nurse aide rcg3.s" established under ffiat scr-tion a statement detailing the fmdings pertaining to the individual.
(b) If the individual is a licensed health professional usca. by a long-term care facility or rcsin
dential care facility to provide services to residents, the diam-t^^ shall notify the app^pnatc
professional lic°cming authority established under Title XLVH of the Revised Code.
(c) ^^ individual is used by a long-term care faciY^^ and is neither a nurse aide nor a liccmcd
health prcfc^^io-nal.$ or is used by a z^^^^dential. ca'rc facility and is not a licensed health professional, the director shall, in accordance with section 3721.32 ofthc Revised Code, include in the
nurse aide registry a statement dcta.lixag the fmdings pertaining to the individual.
(2) A nu-rsc aide or cth.er indivgd.ml about whorra. a statement is rcquired by this division to be
included in the nurse aide registry may provide the director with a statom.c^^ disputing the dim
rcctor`s fmdings and explaining the circumstances of ffic al:I.egaticn.`Fhc statement -s:baU be included in the nurse aide rcgistry with the director's fiudingsa
(D)(^) If the director ^^ that aDcgcd neglect or abuse of a resident or m^^^ppropriatign of
property of a resident cannot be substantiated, the director ^^l notify the individual and c^^
pongc all files and records of the ;.nvcstigadon and the hearkg by doing all of the follcwing;
(a) Removing and destroying the files and records, originals and copies, and deleting all index
references;
(b) Reporting to the individual the nature and extent of any information about the individual
tramm€^ to any other person or government entity by the director of hcalth5
(c) Otherwise ensuring that ^.y cxandnaticn of files and records in queslicn show no record
0 2014 Thc^^^n Reutene No Cla.im to Orig. US Gov. W^rkso
Appx. 81
R..C. § 3721.23
Page 3
whatever NWith respect to tac inalividml.
(2)(a) If, in accordance with division (C)(1)(a) or (^) of this section, the director includes in the
nurse aide mgi.^try a statement of a fmd1ng of neglect, the individual found to have .^^^lee'ted a
rQsi^ent may, npt earlier than one year after the date oft1i.^ fmdingz petition the director to rescind
the findmg and remove the statement md any ^^^^^^anymg information from tt°xe nurse ai^c
registry. The director shall consider the petition.11"9 in the judgment of the director, the neglect
w&s a singular occurrence and the employment and personal history of the individual does not
evidence abuse or any other incident of neglect of residents, the director shaU notify the.ind`zvi^^ and remove the statement and any accompanying information from the nurse aide registry. The director sha.€. expunge alI files and recox&s of the 1nvesfigation and the hearing, except
the petition for rescission of the ^^ ^^^egJect and the d^ector's notice that the rescission has
been approved.
(b) A petition for rescission of a finding of negl.ect and the. director's notice that the rescission ^
been approved aren.ot public records for the purposes of section 149o43 of the ^e-vised Code.
(3) 'Whe^ ^^s and records have been expunged under division (D)(1) or (2) a£thzs section, all.
rights and privileges are restored, and the 1ndividtial5 the director, aud any other person or ^ovemment entity may properly reply to an inquiry that no such record exists as to the matter ex6
pungede
CRED1°1 ^^^
^^^^^ H 1, eff. 10w16-09y 1.995 H 117^ eff. 9--29-95; 1990 H 822, eff. 12w13-^90^
^ IIS"C"ORICAL AND STATUTORY NO'^^
EdL Note4 Former 3721.23 r^^^edby 1979 H204x § 270, effi 9-1- 79, 1979 S 180; 19771-1276,
§ 1, 2•
R.C. § 3721.23, OH ST § 3721.23
Current through Files l. to 76, and 78 of the 13 Oth GA ( 2013 -2014)a
(e) 2014 Thomson Reuters. NTo Claim to Origo US Gov. Works.
END OF ^^^^W-NT
0 2014 Tha^^^ ^euten. 2^^ ^^^ " Orig, US 0 av. wurks.
Appx« 82
w^^^m
^
R^C. § 3721.24
Pago I
Effective: [See Text .^ ^^dmentsj
Baidwiii°^ Ohio Revised Code Annotated Currentness
Title XXXVHo T-^ealth^^^^ety---lMo^^,l^
Chapter 3721. Rest :C^om^s and ^^^^ Homes (Refs & Anuos)
Reports of Abuse and Neg1^^^
^^ 3721a^4 R^taRatia^^ prohibited
(A) No person or government entity shall retaiate a,^abist an ^^^^^^^e or another individual
usel. by the person or govemment entity to ^erforin, any work or services who, in good f-di^
makes a report c^^^^^^ted abuse or neglect of a resi.d^^^ ^r misappropriation of the property of
a resident; indicates an intention to make such a repor4 provides infonmation during an investi,^ation of suspected abuse, neglect, or misappropriation conducted by the director of b.eaith; or
participates in a heaang ^onci.^^^^d under section 3721.23 of the:^evi.^ed Code or in any other
admini,^trative or judicial proceedings pertaining to the suspected abuse, neglect, or xlisapprom
priation. For puiposes of this di-vision, retaliatory actions include ^^hargina, demofmg, or
t-amf^g the employee or other person, preparing a negative work per^'€^rm=^ evaluataon. of
the employee or other person, ^^^^^^^g the benefits, pay, or work privileges of the employee or
other person, and any other action intended to retaliate a^^^ ^^ employee or other person.
(B) No person or g€^^^mmen^ entity sh^ retaliate against a resident who reports su.^per-ted
abuse, neglect, or misappra^^riation; indicates an intention, to make such a report; prov.id.^s in
lbrmation during an investi,^ati€sr. of alleged abuse, ^^gject, or misappropriation conducted by
the director; or gardcipates in a he^^ under section 37210^3 of the Revised Code or in any
other. administrative or judicial proceeding pextakdn^ to the suspected abuse, neglect, or Mi.8-appr^pHa^on.^ or on. whose behalf any other person or ,^ovemment entity takes any of those acm
tionss For purposes of this division, retaliatory actions incl^^^e abuse, verbal threats or other
harsh language, change of room assign ent; ^^hoid^nqg, of semicos, F-aihin, to ,^rovA^e care. ina
timely ^^; and a-ay other action intend-ed to rp-Wiate against the resident,
(C) Any person has a cause of action ^abid a person or ^^^^mment entity for hmm resulting
from va.oMon of division (A) or (B) of this ^^ctiana If it fm^ that a violation has occurred, the
court may award damages and order injunctive relief. '^^ ^^uit may award court costs and
reasonable ^ttomey's fees to the prevailing pa-rty.
C 2014 Thomson Rou#em. No Claim to Ori.^. US Gov. Works. ~APPXa 83
KC.
§
3721.24
Page
;^
CREDIT(S)
(1990 11822, eff. 12-13-90)
^STORICAL AN:f.^ STATIYFOR.Y NOTE S
Ed«^ Note: Former 3721.24 repealed by 1979 H 204, § 270, eff. 9W1-79, 1979 S 180; 1977 H 276,
§ 1s2R.C. § 3721.24^ OH ST § 3721.24
Current through Files I to 76, and 78 of the 130th GA (2013m2014).
(c) 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Ong. US ^ov. Works.
END OF DOCTJNffiNT
0 2014 T'hcamsosx Reuters. No CL-dm to Orig. US Gov. Woxks. Appxg 84
^^^^^V%
R.C. § 372125
Page I
^
Effective; [See Text Amendments]
Baldwixi'^ Ohio Revised Code Annotated ^entiess
Title XXXVII. Heatth---^^etya M€^^s
"^I Chapter 3721. Rest Homes and Nursing I=lom^^ (Refs & Annos)
^v Reports of Abuse aud Neglect
-o-i^ 372115 Confidentiality of information
(A)(1) Except as required by couTt order, as necessary for the administration or enfc^^ement of
any statute or ruic relating to long-^erm care facilities or residentW care facilities, or as pro-vided
in division ^^ of this s^ctior, the director of health shaU not disclose any'of the following
without the consent of the individual or the indi-vidua.i°s legaa. representative:
(a) `I'^e name of au indi.^^dual. Whs^ reports ^^^^^^^ ^^^^ or neglect of a resident or mi.sapa
propraation of a r^^idenf^ property to the director;
(b) The nam^ of an ind.i.vidual who pr^vides information during aa€ investigation of suspected
abuse, neg;1.^cf^ or misappropriation conducted by the director;
(e) Any inforanat%on that would tend to disclose the identity of an individual described in division
^^^^^^(a) or (b) of this section.
(2) An agency or individual to whom the director is required, by court order or for the admi-nistrat^^^ or enforcement of a statate relatiug to long-ter^ care facilities or ^^^iden:^ care Iacilw
ities, to release ^brmation. ^^^cri'^"ed in division (A)(1) ^^^^ ^^on shaLl not release the inm
^^rmat^on without the permission of the individual who would be or woWd reasonably tend to be
identified, or of the individu3.'^ legal representative, unless th^ agency or individual is requixer^
to ^el^^e it by division (D) of this section, by court order, or for the administration or ^nf€^^ement of a fitabat^ relating to long-term care facilities or residential care facilities.
(B) Except as provided in division (D) of this section, any record that identifies ax.individual
0 2014 nomson ^dtma No"Claim to O.rzgo ^^ ^ovo Wosls. Appx$ 85
R-Co § 372I.25
Pap, 2
described in division (A.)(1)(A) or (b) of this section, or that would tend to disclose the identity of
mch an, individual, is not a public record for the pmposc^ of seedcn 149.43 ofthe Revised Code,
and is not subject to inspection or copying und^rsectaon 1347.08 of the Revised Code.
(C) Except as provided in division (B) of this section and division (D) of section 3 72123 of the
Revised Code, the rcwrds of a hcari-ng conducted under section 3721.23 a^^^e Revised Code are
public records for the purposes of section 149.43 of the Rc-viscd Code and are subject to inm
spcciion and ccp^ring andcr section 1347.08 of the Revised Code.
(D)1f the director, or an agency or individual to whom the director is required by court order or
for administratic-n or .cnforccmcnt of a stat.ab-, rclating to ^ong-^orm cm facilities or residential
care facilities to release infbrmatiou dcscr-ibed in division (A)(1) of this section, uses iuformation
in any adm-in1stra#i.vc or judicial proceeding against a longdteim care facility or residential care
facility that reasonably would tend to identify an individual described in division (A)(1)(a) or (b)
of dfis section, the director, agency, or individual sball. d°aw1^^e that irfcnmtian to the facility.
However, the director, agency, or individual shaU not disclose infczrnat€on. tb2t directly identifics an individual d^senbcd 1n davisia^n (A)(1)(a) or (b) o^^^ section, uulc^^ the individual is to
^^^ in the proceedings.
CREDIT(S)
(1995 H 117, eff. 9-2. 9--95Y 1990 H 822, ^fT 12W13-90)
IEST'+^^CAL AND STA'1"''1"ORY NOTES
Ed. Note: F-crma 3721.25 rcpcalcd by 1^^91-1 204z § 270, cff. 9-1-7931979 S 180; 1977 H276y
§ 1, 2•
R.C. § 3721,25, OH ST § 3721.25
^uuent through Files I to 76, and 78 of the 13 ^ GA (2,013 -^ 0 14),
(c) 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Workse
END OF DOCUM
IEN°1'
0 2014 ^^on Ro^tem. No Claim to Oxig. US Gov. Works. Appx® 86
^dsd^n
R.,,C, § 3721.26
Page 1
^
Effective: [See Text Amend.m^^^^
^^dwin°s Ohio Revised Code Annotated ^ ^enta^^s
Title 300CVII. Health---^^^etyLLLLM^^^^
^ Chapter 3721. Rest Horn^s anr1.1^^sin^ Homes (R^^^ & Annos)
"a Reports of Abuse and Neglect
-o-o, 3721a26 Ruletc^^^ powers
^^e director of health shall adopt rules pursumt to Chapter 119. of the Revised Code to im1Sl^^ent
sections 3721.21 to 3721,25 of the Revised Code, including rules prescribing ^^^^^ementsA^^ the
notice and hearing required under section 3721.23 of the Revisel. Code. The notice and hearing
required under section 3721.23 of the Revised Code a-re not ^^^^^ to Chapter 119. of the Revise€1.
Code; how^ver, 'th^ ^^^ may provide for the notice to be pr6ided and the .^^^g to be conn
ducted in accordance with that chapter. Rules adopted under this section s:}iaU be no less stringent
than the requirements, and proced^^^ established by the United States secretary of
health and ^^^^ services under sections 1819 amd 1919 of the z6S^^ial ^coudty Act," 49 Stat. 620
(1935),42 U.S.C_A. 301, as amended.
CREDzT(S)
(1990 H 822, eff. 12-13-941)
.^STOPICAL ALND STATUTORY NOTES
Ed. Note: ^orm^^ 3 721.26 recr^^^d as 3 721A1. by 1990 H 822, eff. 12-13-90s 1981 H 694.
R.C. § 3721.26r OH ST § 3721.26
Cmrent through Files I to 76, and 78 of the 13 Oth GA (2013 °2414).
(e) 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Caim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
E' OF DOCUMENT
0 2014 Thcmson Reuters. No CWm trs Oxag.. US Gov. Works. Appx® 87
.^
,
19^ ^is^. ^ws -^z^ ^^^^
HnA7, dk°?fflizzm7_02;
,rm-wR, 4733.Z?, zxaad
^^^:3k^ ^-'fl'^ ^^ nsA ^¢He^ 33fl^a[t^ aczc£ ^#a3 &.9^
WA R64m^ Cmk- meeBa va ehk aa maB &C presvHg= a9"Sveissa
2^O^ +afa#w RaHW +C'°o& m a^ #sg ^ ^#sa£f ^gepsHy ^#^
kre aQ m2 tntemiiinw sigzigyr- P=cOmNIyA Yflw FFec
a H^.9^ ^s cnra£B^^
01 ^ ^ce hzftd Pa aFS awocsvlca@ Sa€9a x, ^a^ a3a^ex af #zix
npa# p 2 a,Phbsa
oR- = -way-g +^ a aw-- cr o€' 29 ^omddpznzs tFf xsF
xe4 mxc^^. ^y
Md s`a zHn^ Syom °tzv^H zF^osace„°°
as asa .t®^ 234#j.33 a 9Hm Rv^imH d;+2,d,&an eHa,: saus^^ nn ^F^axa^x
AmEN^^ ^URMTUT^ ^OU^^
„ 3€€k_b3e SH3fl.46„ aa^i
5Hg#^^H7 a^d ^ctaaa^ca 33?€.p23,
^32€.£E21s 3'^2fl^„ .3"H2fl.73,
3723.,.2k, 372k.23, 372#.34, ^flg8.2£Hfls S#H3.3.H9 511 H.36, 5113-37,
3Hdfio.3^„ 3##€.3#; 5I#k.kH£^ ,^€I1_^$8„ SJd3o8R, 5€ia,^p 5111a3E
3€€€•5381# 560 3831.53, Sfl&€.`a^e 5lHfl_57, ^3#€ ^$,
SHHH
^3„3£#$a^„
3# #H.(83„SflR#o6#
xr^€{ "e#€€.6?atXa& Rciesxdcsx8r^ bs
ca2WW 2o mzH n fmH
1347-0 fthtz aaf ^blectgs aa3^ pOSSme az^^g^r^,
ass
imvecftz IM MU•M
^a-L No. 922
1411 I'Mgaift Dxee:
a^fl.9k.^^„ 3HH£_d35,
2k .^€HH.^€
3s,3^6
^y
^+Hs 5iflH.£9€,
23HHfl
^^i€2^ 3H6p 3EEfl2b„ 3Ht^H.27, 5bHfl^(4^3Hfl
3BH6^3„SR%#32 ^H££^YH,3EHfl.^^o^$9fl#^€3bxst^F^s^ sa^
9€ms 372fl 2ao $3S2E,^3} ,372fl 16H (3729,421 372Y.27 ^^32d 2s^
3-12I.3:71 (372t33)„ 51 HH.33 HL SEH34 F5IE
3# k 8.,4fl 06 9 fl,7515@#€.42 (5 # H H.7^^ 3P k£,^^ ^5 g B H.^< ^ H H fl.^
^Sfl#^.2H£p^ 3gHHa^^ ^SZfld.7^^
(513 1 M6 ^3£Ht_^ ^^rl 3fl11.47
€,^#$sa#^
sicsszs^t£aea
^ ^s^
PMWM asPadaadasgn4om^ ^ saexiaaa
esm®fl^
zza^ica^z^
PesmEnS"S^,
ae^ ^Ea^osa^
5 1 £fl_42, 9#11.43, -5 tis_44
372€ 2&
W Evm3" g€t cer pow ^sc^
tE a^ ^xs%F^3sinx a p^zH €^ff^sr
° ^e^ AHst xaag^S xcss£
^ 3y^^ is#rrs8ii"ts^FHus^ u#
Pg^fsmaA nrH^a 6s sb& su$ie0 a¢'p':ACaz#
asaf"3Mx1#w ia 9€^ ^
22-91..90
D'Ae Apx",H G-wzgw- d^
s-£1-50
E2-flxw
D-axFard
^^#^eeeHbm U3
spmaor MEHNIET
^^^ ^ ^ ¢3ae H^oua ^aB ^ ^FSS#s
^ re ^rf ared ^aeaH iss#ar s=na
^s uP a^zAr^ Y^ a^ t6^ ^£^^
l^^R g zx€ €rx adza s^iaa^ ^^ ^^^2^ ai zHe^F ^ez^F
the €=Sva,
ay^Y4gm aanB#ra^ek m ^ F^3n^ u^x s°°eX vu€eQ gFra
^^asanx4
flra^€ 3ao
e^^
t&^ sg^tl^ ,^ , ^ ^ ^
^eg
^rera^
^°^r
tte
#^r
crH
Hgi^H:aAZS^ Sc i^. £°
u3^ 4bheas (3) F^nfursx €^ ^ aHxc^A
Eta^ abfl^ z£ sa^ u^xe^s eH tBac
,mWaaa^, 9£aes ,^e s s^gaer^ ^asssr^H^x^g axf ^H _
^y° ^ra^He ^^"^ ^ ^^°tlfl ^FS^ €s ^ed iut cs^eH©axxe ^ ^ ^ ^ F^^ ^ ea9cxaeHd^ 8s£ anp V5= madfly
F^ Hmrasst^ze£ gss 0 ^F, R
y
s^kt^ s^^ ^^traa^
,to ^^ eCq 3^ves#a^ by g#Fas
^. ^^„
fl°°„ $yAB3
S. ^ ^e
^^£^f9J`
LOAS
H^'^^^ '" .7
tl`.^'^
, ^33a tFA1dCg.
^u^
^;^..f^
{^3^
€1 3^5tMe'^tl^
ar^#^
,$ ^Y ^wz^#^
^^ ^ ^e ^eH ^fss^.^
^^s€^H9 c£e^£ss^ umeda^ °a^x'^
^acra^ $_
sa^x^aks^aa E^ m
1 ar ass#`sa^£^e esr aas
^nsra^
#sat
^ i^ e£s^
itod HF^ urdm
ra^# '^
u£
€n^
EA^
com
^°
^^H^3^^eHcF^
^ zs9 s^sF^ s^
^^#^ ag^aa^ ^ &g
flT^z¢^
s^ a# EHt^ e4c^ ^€ ^ gA ^s) ^ k
snc ^£xr^ive V=00, s"a whsa^ ^^ ttoz kawx aFF ask^ x^ca^ ^z
flA36caasa, ^ °axe^FmFZ ^afl£ H^ ^#ra^ ^ee a
PMsasae me Hry$xb kpH ^^$d by 4£se
Txs 2--d --v1zO= 1347.€#^ 3'79Bfl.d323„ 3'^33.^,3H,
37.7H..i^$, 372ff.d^8„ ,^":7fl.0^s 372E-E3?r, 37oE2 saro
372g.M 3721_20s 3729,27„ .772€.37fl, .3722-a„
3723.^a? Ras 372£.339 3'82&,^ 4723.^¢n
SH&fl.£#H,
3tt£8,iP2, 5flfffl.f^&r3£flk.20,3 5119.21„ 3€i€.2i
5'£,# H^, 5111.73 3o 511 fl 32 3& € E_^H€„ ^fl f€e^R^, a^ss#
59 Ag.^ ^B 4=04
^ vurp*go of ,edwi% ,tam
-elim
mamms
3^ (3723.4g), '^d'^^#^^fl 72.8
€^^35
7
^aea1^ XO^€^i ^7^^^^^^aaj^$^aa^^^^
s,HEb.43 ^S€H3.Y3^ 3€flfl,44
582 9.45 g51 HJ.-ft 51 YH.46 (53#Hift aand 59 H1.47
3€€^^M^)3fl"^ 92„ S 8^.^^S^Yfl^,^^fl,43
sH H,€.O„ aasd. 3€ ike,§7 amd sx=6zvM 372fl_022r
37N,031„ 3MM w 372€A 372B.34r 5ikfl^I3H
5 & R fl. 1S 1z7 .^# & #_'^ ^Fmd S# #'H.U ¢re 3H k fl_^b2 ee@'
^ ^ ^m atmn^eai ^ku^ 3 c^ik^ ^ee^
by M6eeEt g#i ^8 ^^ flaa'd^z^
^ ^ s3fl^^cH r^' flL^s#3^F an sE,a€,
faEB dH ^FiH^gq^ ,^,. ^^ ^ ^ u^m a^ ^f^¢ °ssrs 2^e za^'4^ ^s^Hs^ ^^[ +^H$HoiwzFt
xNuaFxnezu ,aDs# am
^€^ a^2^H€^H^oFxdm
^^ ^^rss
eF^ "^nm^
3^^ ze
for ers^posa^arcn ^d
ffe-^ ^ ^ BHsx
fffla^#^ ^ fl°sam Hfir^a ^Fw Rs9henHid#p iwmwiz
Cnw
beah Mi£ eo^ ^ cmvqx=7^
ax ^ ^-^^ ^^^
^ ^+>^Ec^'
xiEh^en-a #fa:^esr.k ^Efl^sraF^y
^ fl8se ^^ ^s#Ea^ ^4`a by e#e az^anz^ £^3^ee
rzqnegRCMHxnmxxrOraBmzHor2hfx^FZee^e
^z^s^ ^mes3eri£a^ ^^^smaa Fe^'k^ sHeg^srAFaas^z aa^sti^
flrs$sFSSaa4aa^ ^ 2^xsdbe^x„ d^x8m^esak sHs^H d^g+a ye mes^aa^&
aHavsflm (Q cf^ "ZR ^R&,igA CO&^% H^i^a^ ers
(D) fl£'axx imsHisszdneg `,M eI F^ndwrh&d to p03^_^ FFt^t?t
FFF$ 3£LQYAF 3JrG
H^ EH^^ XDS' ^%^L$G;,^ BHdS^ fEFef}^"
ma ^t Fffk^CtlS'^&.E93fiCH DHt ,'3
^^ of a^ gtrsus^aa£ 3ssiF^eg^ ^aE hx F^ E^
xax 9€m zradn+^ ^YE^zh
AOM
^
^ c^-Hhc e^ a^^csrFC^nH€ta
bcw
a^F s^aY
w
c^£^''ss^
2w Fm ^`^ H^ ^vs"ase ^'=H^a^& ss
'^m ^^4 j^ ^SII$25Cyyp}^ by ^gg ^ ^H^^r ^SAa£ 4ft£^t#'FBe^i^ Owfl) TFb; ssediam pmarfiattc zCKE^tx flo ^9 HeeHoaz^^Ea^s 8hse8
^^ssass3 smt a^ naFJa3a{sss^BSa^i ^a^aF by H^a arHaa s2^
'^r^aaxa6vicers, £^d ^ xeufl 3izaAat e#F'ay^ a
an'y ^e
ses^es'usf ^em^€a sm a ^H ^^^^a^ ^#^s^xa^
issHs^a>
,^
.^,^'cer
,^s*},r'^ a^xd„ ^n£ £m ^faaua g^H+^..^3 x^H"^
^
10
y^
A.waE4C.` ^ a^ 8^6'^^7GCX^ Fgq ^l g,^^ °^""av
(2) Tb^g
-cs'sas de^m
nas£ prox£dir
#^sdssxz9
i^`alaaaaaHis^
Fa^az^£aircad
iaF a Sascsss wdFSF es #^Fg tg,^ ©£'
te geamn^g kfccma#isarf V/W=a
^Hc^,a H^at#oa^
as^ ^^Ees^saa^ xr^iHt^
by tflae g^o
112
X. ^,^g, ^^ or azqeeea^ ^a aa^,t^y r^s raFaiamzz^
?n
^xms^
irqr¢ncxs esH' ass £as
a casar#aees^^ .^a
^ef^m4 ee^r'^^dHte
Hl ^a^im^ '^arrsrd:^e8
^ud sn^ Erea€
10.0 rR'£h ^^ d €zt divs^eFS ^p ^d (4) x^ Mkie^n
H^3^H^ a^s raza ^?aa^ ma^Y s1^obs#y £a ^AHti't €6F ^ EC#B -
^^3&4]^ €. ^a2 ^irecrs I387.E3^, 3704.€623„
3702.51„
3721,04, 3721.0; 3321-09, 3M.#k 372&,t2, 372fl,#-^'„ 3721_fl4,
332€ HS„ 372€, €k 372 E. £7, 3721..2g„
(fl) PaF
awsA Ma8 ^ bj im d &j^ eflm pcftnrc ¢es zo
3€03,# p of E&re $^a^ ^^F®en nm ^t^mm ^yeB#^ se^aaFF
€kHiMRW fiftx€ iFf 3irkim (A) saH'zmie>s 3107,42 a #3ae
^^mCodc,
^
1990 :^io^ ^^s^-FujI -Text
. ^1013
H 822 § I
0) RECORDS Ta04.T IDENTk'FY AN €NDIV§%AUAL
€xa^^eae ^+eaaM z^Be&c^s$e d^s^^sc^s^u8€ts?ka6ffi
X3^ED rig DNMOd (AX9) OF SEMOPl 3721 431 OF
^ FW €anpadzrk bavsw, aair e^^Rn®R Mr,
^'I9^O d^3d^F, O. '^'&3^,^" ^'9'3u&„^ '^+F•d1 TO 9^s^
, an# ag w3w
2x4;etd mWame f=Lvkxd by boViEzk faa
3^2 ^53^ fN 3^39€'^3^^XA1.,,
87^^^ I^FPZ
^ (YB OF ^ ^ ^
^g
•71^111^
^'d&^ ^,.Qb^b^
D (5s ^ ^,Sb^fi^£}^ ^ ^ ^ LB °^ ,^^"'^^`^^3^^E^ ^^
B EE ^^^+ ^gD^ O. THAT WOULD I^ TO MkNTff'^.'^'^A3J^b^Dg3'^
^^ 3E I ^^ (A)(1) T OF ' ^^#€^^€1^^ U OF
^ R^`& e^ +^3.335F, CBR "#HeR €` ^t'^^ M^ fl £^ €^3^7
€ 3^h SUCH ^S:i^9 b€di^D h^B?UAL
^^,^ ^ia^ ^3•^^^v5t a^ ^^ ^ I^^^ ^)
'^ E3^^.^•^ OF ^,tS^'$H a' x^cB^%,
,DDM^S'€ R'^9m ^rrd fa^ ft "^^€ s^md Y^d
^%^^€^^H}^ d^ ft83^^ ^. '3Y^€9 ^a^eeudhr^, farr^aacag^^^sa e^^
^1^ ^cn^^zxxee Fesr my9s^a€,^p
THE
^3Efl°'^ MAY kAk^
b-A kappzd
GRAMM
'^ ^'^ 3 AND
e^'^^. ^7TI'^'^^ F£BR ^E &'.o^r°m€bm OF su^'d^s
'#F&'TF3 THE &^}^'9 ^, ^ L1^AR k q7° MAY ^t,b,M 'f^E
k^3^ FUbF^S« TO ^°b^3^^ ^^I^€,kT^!' ^"sU#E1^^EM C9'2'^
^^Y4x "^ ^^B^9R'^ OF ^.'^b4^ ^&^ ^ €^Ri^4"x^^e B^' P^A kM^F^I^a ,d4.YD ^d. RF.96L^ ^k%.^^3aY^ ^S WHO P€kD^aE '^i4l^s SM^^,^` .
'^B$ •I'^m D^,t^2.''^' b'^9+.ff;€ ^^ ^
kac^e^ ^'cyr ^x€^r su e fu ^^ee fw ^^' bx^aaqeped ^ee&
a#xr^ t^ = m^enska€ ^m'^ cd^r€^amg by }^ys%^a ^ndas
^^d ^mae vcath dixi^ ^) ,y^gHona =dti^n, sasd .bm9k
^aoe ^ e^ the E^ ^ the e®ad"^zI ^
^'aa^a^a€ e^sg^Eu^n&q ^^^ ^^rxd by B^ g^r^a€^ ^
^^ €m^ to A^eabi^R ^e^O) of ^Bisa^ 37¢3g.Y^9 s^• t^
^^'oad e, ^znd by x^ ^ in the ss^ea^£ z^• ^wg
b^aa
^ es t^^ ^cxrY^ ^ ^r^r^ ^^^
^^ sBd eaed^n
wnampocd
^Rs^
3si35 d^€ ea^' ffier ^ ^ I€s4'eaa^ ^ pmcow*
^C"rI^3P^ sdrn9d^ ^ €L^ p^^ ^a mma€' b,e
^zlxrs e&^ ^
rax "b^^ۥ seX' ^ dss7s& by ^ ^ &^k
keea^^ ^nax^s„ m ^c€Ae^ i^mt^ gr^c^ "^ d^aass^ a^"
^^3 aa^ ^Sn^^£n 2 9ck ^€i^s d^zessa^ a^ &Pas^r aagn; ^s
aeca ^niz ^2e the d^+^ ar^•^a#tla
$^ ^ THE ^.^',^R^ W,flLL emg^^M $
g31^HdeYi' 2dY' w`88W3^^ to ^'}Il'0^4^8d^C: to S^'^T 4'C`SS6 ]C&^ DSAf€R^"
3l-a^ a^' ^, wAraaag e^ ^ead ^€ x^ix^^s ^^
tsa 3.^ axxsmurrznc ^ ^,ff ft ^g o-w^ gam"sflpn #nz^s's
^roa^e a,^y dfie d^sst^ ^ op ^ he ^'+^ f^t St
^zr^ s^ ^#zsd^ sa^^ ^^g s^
#^f I# `^rat'^ sEaza'sx az9.s ^ faak^s. na3 aros€& ^esd by
fEe pabHac ^ pnrsuw to d€ros^ca ^.^) ^' ^a€r^
37Esg.d92 or db^.•a€^resg^ ^ "^ gP^°^^ M€u^Z,^
apokx&m
^"^'^i^
:£I,`i7^ ^25^&^9^^ ^cq
an^a+^azHo^^ ^ ^ees^^ea ^°k''^' to
^ ^ The ^ ^f asaxer eaft ^, w°sa3x^, a&c^^^'^ ^ drA^aa¢bnod to 3^ s^b8e to ^ u
k ^^'^ ^az ^se°xdcx ^rezmrertt ^^ by the
^ R^aa ^. ^ac8 ^ ^Bs".ts^ 51 € €.4€€ ae^'
^qiP ^ E3E'^'^9d^^" ^ ErF.^#J,^,`^ stpga^i^
^ €^ca^aia^= Rr ^+^ E^r
^+^e ^2 ^'st^ m$ gmc^e^^ 3zr e^ss^'axsa zYaRer
a^aaaa^K to 6^ ^€°s^ab^e fex ^mnre F,3€^ ^8€^ •2 I^d63^^ ^^sF^ psxms^g S^s aff^rsffi ¢^€^' t^' F9nss ^. '^e
_^ •^E# ^aez^ m^ ^ ^r"scxs a^ rsd^^
ah s^^ wis^ a^z zmdn+^i^ gx^
^: ^^3asEd,
THE 93^^^ € ^^ ^ P^e9P; fm vra^pFiz^
¢ea^ ^^ ^ ^^^r
^
^ ^T
ees^di^ ^# anr^
^eee¢^S F^y e^epeaa^•f'^e ^, fia-4^8 s•as^g^ys^ ^,res^,
P^a^ to eas^i-.
21 ^^ c^^^ ^rnded ^ 35ag gsIzass^rea s^ E,^
^rmd:s or ftr^,s s`s by the e ae^ ^3ssx^t
^ asr M €aF #k^s ^a es. Br a^grrenv3 to the ^rkr^ame
^p ^a B^ ^ Qr^r ^
a^dea^ e^at^ ansssedd
£re nsn acwgdayft qai& meahu^ gsht^ by the pcsbrIc
b^ ^a smclk gdcs M "aP94 €Sae s^Ewssren8 sbg
=6re gayttsr.eeU W 6-ra4s k mmrdmm with amsmWft wg
pdozc#0- f- -e"yyrs.om^efl +zmder am rrz&=m Pxqoen zs€^
wol3s or m»ra= ahz th- fnmtieaak or M4"r.n8 haapew s^xs
3ha be m2& in axx-,xdaucc with rw=00pied by the pub€'w^ 5xa8u€t
Qdr ^ €atx^nd Ex t^^ns€essa ^d^ ^ ^n^ ^7£99 ^€ s^8^g ^ewcsx^
' (G) ** T6o DEPARTsEN€ SHAF,L Pa4.Y for mvaFhmr^^
9MI& OX grws`=, oaga Oaa the 200=1 ddumaspod raaagqT e&avwma M
a 8Bu`ss scazm fm do aug9araQZma VKU or axaa&p 2ss xhe
exFes# dlo pmftan €'aax the aUO-gae4 woft•xer mv;= xirafx
^^ ^^^ abx^ bxnncFi3
a% r= dgsarS=cw sha➢i m €"ar
rHee•Zoe& or xmylm aW4 XR= aFx mxaikbE, derld-Wy b=d"s^
q'I rlw 9&&Ixa9^ ^^ mabae xzredw cbc °mdcmaH aa^
CMd Raft ^^ Trsac^" 7°ss^ +° e^ Eh^ "SOeW S=lli#y A4,7 S'S
e4at. ^^^; ^A33^9^ ^E^ ^^.^ e4 79B€ a^ zm^aae^ ^ zzs^rive^ affid
a^^9ias^ #g 3€SS --art &ft-eesm usdcr drwm Mzx aw
^e"t"Or 5006 md scxvia-.e^ sacZ ardne3mdesE
aa3^dax^^
^rrusirsss F,Q a+e ^.'^ of tbzx wx;tim sPma txasi be apc€cfaxd am
P11--sE 2--ft d1--n a®d +.nnndec dsvWm Me a#a sj^eiaa..
Paymmfl makdy &e sdamrESaeye& x6ea,€1 he 0mid"a mmraau in
fO98 a d€tC aiaowg ddzm.smdammle€• e9nVisi" eas"M
M^'uraa6d g^^eaft #°rsz powau. 'angiEsi, A`est' xmsxE^^ x^a^^
xamdcr "k adz = OfEhi: ` sacia3 S2=WdY A&,"" 4-9 gw. 6M,- s, pc^3SX
42'V.^ ^ 301, n =uvdgL, a3rag bg sxs^ao3rxz^ PYUv.#
sss. €'aed€
sad the mmmt 40ftmafi^ed caacdqw d'cxfiesoae (E) cr F66s s6aa,,.
^-GY Lwdknmmd rud who nexzm szs vams &aa, d^e ^^ c^n• '
bis to AWY 3nr aN tbird-^y bew-€qg3 £{cr
w6s^t T&^p ^^+ b^ ^b^ ^ z^(a5^ B€t^ ^,'^xea^gs„ s7^e^xad^^^^ ^^ ^^ ^ ^ A^c 2^°swesd to the xxssasmm^H eFa^c
^t b,^
xo^As^ the yu€r€a^ he^s sa^ ^ 9°^aa,d^m
gsu¢stsa'a& E+ar c6n*sism
, (,ei)(3) rad`
smam 370€,02€ ed• z&na Rg-ps`wd Csxft, TAM DEPARTMENT
SHALL^^ the 20mm nch OroesALy s6,aEfl pmsaa9e annxo-^
wly -zda'saY I-4xWed ah&ftxe4 bmd em,,
P-A O-WY A-¢ ewpfimsr, mm
9ap "C-d thb^W o9` a xeaK =® d=VD 3hcs;^, u^p 1, W,
-,mtturaI - s€e#ramazzaaA f- -y w o g"= p m, --,, ^ 2 m ^ Q cx eBtn:s
see3€z^e f- eu^
-xwi= mn €"£ a 2=4nm1h €saudir,€€s^x6
^e^7S5f
h2'YW €v9 xtfl-eFt& XC{ the wQnty thry$ 6 1CG9t g,'Nlm ^1RtXi3
fo*w,a fmds ftanh the mw€mp^s^x5a^ gs^am
€aAcd mdax o^aea 51 € €.4b1 of xEeg, €kew^rx8 ^r,. fl^ Ees ^
uuax^,e in 3^ee ffiF##^. c€cx^ gy^ ^ s^nuuflr, the P*b6ic hzam omxaol dna hedd a parbrw beaxs`se ch tu rvmd itcaeas^ sknz8 don
ni re aaGaAam cF' um 8rxaizng m mde bmd',¢ 0,"jg
Oag -ia€ ^- s%^md by f.@m z=emc &B kmA 86ss`.xy &V^g^nasr A^x
&& Me ^Nd fax" gIuc,&wjnf- ,aay uo=p c"m6'•eme.r gm mpow
W'd gs- mg^nsseuY $ce the b-viw- Am€r b2^ aee t9az
cxsaaue8y sa xozd-A to waavicEe fccc tht €y^imfor gae^ hami^apgeQ chmsaxt.
dba k. ^{^aa^teea^ "-d uxaim ar ?Ys$ mz^snY of
s.8e sabmm ^ E+e g^asaa^s^w m s^ s^as€ `
c5cm^^i^asaar^ maa warahass €^ ^es^ dzty aa^•le^,^ ax^'t^€ag
^3^yra.z
^
n-I W--,iuz the r-I yew ix evkaaa3a &* azmft vm mb- tsaeL
A.59 ^seeaas ^E^ Ml^ by ^ dqmtmezg uns€eT ibiZ x€avasam
s8sa tSe dcpmkw E n 60 "a ummy to #k sZsdx8 a6€ra ""gmuy
Fsgund-^Apw &M-mcafly ;aommow famdy wnna k ize",9•y ,,
Med, T'be &rnd sT-9 bx oswd by the sgaxstmc csf hwits W cmAy
wigh mrs"mg 3Mff 632€ #ar 1-j936ms of tbt Rev#aed c"'d,
m DM 3DEPARTMM4T SHALE, ,# DNMWM^
VK%- to gm-dda -vzm to o1zi,o mwd=ES wfjo sm t^c^^
arr mnoa^ ^ af^ ad^a ^ sc^f€ea^a^ f-ama
Cys4k Msuras ^md who
att*e the di?jb6ft by 3Isgg s aak' 39sx
gsu#s€b^ b=iRb 0=0 ffluxs•43sasY tta5 dMsnmx (AX4) *f i,=em
32'€€€°028 as^ ^ Rmimd cade- wbject tc ^& ^sks^aa ^4
t2ties
^mz other aft d€v?is'sm (],),
Pm-i& `A'k•8E DE3'R^TMOBT SHALL PR8}VMr- fax
RPP -ts ia *masdffimw vrM £'hqlcr €g 9. aa€' e#4^ R,isd (^D& far
^z ^^^ M ^^ ^^} ^ : ^srs ^m ^ ^ bien
a-szd bY •s9ax &rmelramt c>r a!€'mmusYS A 4d vaxder d rz^•^ a^•
tdais smxm
?ve^as6^aP^xx^ber• 3'9^0
A.^^x.
1^90 Sennoax Laws,•••FuHText
^`^^ ^as^ fl^^^3 ^ ^¢ ss 9sz^zE vr:^s^E r^a^ tse s^s^ fzrx^ne^ae^y ^XraaE cu Yr^a^ ra^
Aaa m^ in e^$ Rkg R^^isxx# credm ^vaz= ar^aa39y
{eTa^ 4Wkr^°° s¢^ttt^ ^# ^ ^ ^ma9^ x^s ^5ye^nesyn (3) P arn^*nd^ ^^a^^} ^a ^3 ^s^s^rn^^ ^B#sa x
^^ ^Fea^,a
(^) w9co
^ ^^ Aum
am e6YHarr Wmgim,Bem sm•
acadficaft OfBwd a^aeda^ ^rfs ^7E3^ ^fi nk"R#e
xMUWZ o€em a45zA; W
Aad M. I &AP&O a dce wo,ym 0 thp qvtaz9
k"^
°g^au^sggy
-^ts&s^
^rifi^
^ ^Vy)
^ ^xcy^
^s^sxad^^s^rm^
ro< assai'srxs^B
^uer^ ^Y^isar^ z^ mrse m
Ant
y^
^fi^+Y
^^
uz&
^a
bzm6x^^i^^
^^a^e
^^$ axk mcr xe^ a a^aaa^es ^ar^E ^^ ^ ^ ^^EM ^sr^ihc^4 ^ in
8^sa dss^ #^ffiw €eti xsA
eu^ Bu ^ear^aaa, s^
x^vaa^^ ac8xrs'^^ &=M&sssm wEgs &A'sinabit ow^ as oAmd md aq6p;a km vrors•.9x
^^& a^ srrvisn^, a^k ^^• ^Vnd^ 3E9e sn^raeeea srg ha e aa^
55% mm vsar ^ xts^ apBsaB
d^ces sd a^ia aa9ax MAM on33 a am R"isg:4
cchadde. 6vcz mtbr.
00 °°-9-W- 83se moa e8 Okasa, a,,a 3nrdiS& b,SeE es 9aesk,4
ar"im-, aeaad ^^xr^P ^; t^ ^as^z ^agro Y^ e^x^ ^a€ a7H +^e^[
MW cs5=se md an dcgwft-ntn^ ^rzaFr^ .m^^, gmpspsawxmr,
iu^ aV&6e dam A-, amid unow Sawd+ us aos
a $^ "nnn MramM M"y M%Z z^ 2 &AP,ee.d em „^.^^ ^ 45, m^ ^^Ms ssasaxssss^eocEa^taa' rf t^oc x^ ^4
^9^ s ^eec^ ^. srs nrxt^ ^s ^ ,^'^.3^ aw lFo'SUCA N^ia^aava^fimes„
n^ ^xna^ 3^ s^rv's^as^^ mn^ a raay%mici^ =}w;aAarexa
(^ °°^3X9e ^ ^'° aaaoms ^a d^, ^^d ^^ sa^aar
Faudxen a^Mt&
$R^ R, 9nrsunacfl xxua^a s^az^a3'^0fl..^ 3 es9 ?^ kkMa^ ,^a& r^^o Sma• g^r^eaf^ axt^^ z^ ^S
MW ZX= ^ktss ^S sa£ ^Pnn ^^R^ ^au cr9r^3r
$^^ A 3c^itsg h^ V^ onder x^i^r. 3'^-7E.fl33 scf ^ ^ esasbs&
^ ^ ^^ ^ 6^ SO➢UYi^G3?^^ 51LK$.8^'SF,2^ M^EA- uJ,"^ntli1N ^^_ ^% CfY^7^X7%' ➢f6n ^F8d9''Ig^{S9^
in ^gl ^^i4^. u 8[f E.^SE'
m^
A sxfcm€yr ^e^ s^ ^ ^^i^ ^Se ^s s3^'uaz^ itt g^) ^RM
c^p^a^adz mR aza^, n^a^ ^g ^ ^aYa ^eanR
^amn 5$^3..^^ a^`' 3^ ^^ €°.^c9^ F#a °s^ s^mw rasdff •A•3t9e W^ xc^s^aYislas ^s f^
R^^ xaag^ar^g'se^^ wa8h R#m aomte+rs
XMH aa• mox afte°txtd ^nisky Aga^" 49 &R. OD {a434 42 in q-giaxz;
uAc6 "L am -mam
emAkd. Aaap tons, W60 xmosi or nmwwdy
e4 eeaNms@^ ^ sw^e £ RAa^ ao-i3)sa^s ^ ^e^ ^n ^e^xe ^ aex v^d b^ R#s^ ^B^S
^^ 0M zmsei= dat woda9 br prmvadxd EiasEff Bb*
(6) A ,^e^ ^ai9E^. ^grs Xs a^` im ^Bia^ca 37P^1.33 zeff'atse ^$) s^cg' ^CC^43n aam 6^y^
4^k I i^anta^ aea ^^ mrvir
smold +itdg Un; axr9roz 0WHind t^sztt 89nl 9ea nae AMa45
mm -Am Y5n kwm mm M"am yyMd Q gmxrvizw aawas d8s^
^css^ So8 Kf SMS AMM &ogs or e¢mm is pvvadkg Ysrxime Pnea€& s^se^Ha ;
10 MzSR9A m¢g facgUVamz s.hak„ bcfv= =3sa1,wa,=*f 9hr sg{Um^^ z^9^6caI s^ ta^ s^a ^e^ae 2a ^s ^ue d^ ^a9eh a rsinnn zaataan nf
^_-°tl^^ N ^ a^aeBn ^u ^ ^$e s^rw^sz ^i^s is 4io+e
t^sa^ s^ ^ ^r err ^a
M^ ar^ g^m^.Pmy ^ ^ exs^ea$^^ }^si^ faaafa^ ^rr
A o^is ^n8
smion, tae Ow how uwsrp mm wom 65c cok'# am ffi^aas^s
^& B^ ^ ^^^raaBis^ ^ ^3^t waam Ee^ vmvj^ "dw the aarxffzcdg
^
£Q Assy u ch- pmm -bo EsEaffmff at & pubBac hmreag bda^
^^a s^roa^ (B) ee9 ao^so 3 3^ 5,3 tsf s.b* ^s`ud
{g^ A rkmzr^ffift m wss30* +^ag^^ ^^ ^+^
C^ m +a #ssa
A fiaz#xadgzg n`rkikm *=on reaaAw: n^n@^i3te^ -aBRzsR ---Rz in 8#e mem €a€'xrsi. of6m armeew
3Rn
A 6akE mm ^n..i^ dmt ak NK& 4m +aom 4 pomy #xm in agmuiaa3. -
&&45ow Mfi &M.4% whedw gl^
boqiw
_ ^ and ^extisuR 3'^'Q? t&^ RevijodB'ass&^
m_
ca ^s^ aaess'R^x^u i ^5e &zs?
^a^^^8^
te F"raA ciawh ad dIAad, %Xfy , ^¢ N^ r^. ^^e^rS^ amd a^m paZ^aa^r Rmd yroxa^9ssztaes^t z£' ^A^a"sc
^m by Wg aitRy uLMe fo#£^^
a^mdiak ^s3iRsax ^^^s ^ dl23pH9 csf ffir $4ev^
Qdk a' cmb= Cs#xg'sexs bp #Eae Mam sRI mnmeH (1) 3ds8aaeainisrg a devmrkzmen d emr sorge = af ast^sthac
hF^
nwoom md dw4amm2a9 cBnWodxrs Wr^n seznas 3U a.W$^ medivs- waGo-oiMo. cem iHsr en4ffimtuon of 00appahic g iucssz 26e RwiW Ch
KA& srd mnsw
ahn'6% amd^r tux nva-assift arf &-s WewLli£eic Pb3mi^^' mom a 4X& wit cd'mmeaGr,aa fqtzepxz^a8 or ae 9a& nam of owsomm3s *% zoM5 Inmucans isha ^ ^edaizezzrg xn ^vc Me &Ta& sw^ IC enaijaNy awaa* ia
ss mod ta gwtdt bm£¢9e axrnik"m emmy85Rk g#56aI-Pr
09 ''^y ^,Ya'" mmm s sscemw amr amMMncem eo M?^wkjz x Amos 06 0=4% ommom B3a
#sxs
skq^ ^^^k JQQM u m zm*ay a§' iYs membNom
4hn Rmsmc£ 8^.ic^ a ho% nahnos^ vVamkq an svarmxm ^"RoCA383okfft sxnn9mLy rmc:w aehezm a" EGEeEit}r s4^n`
cdomm md weod `x*zammse j marome§ag Wasums oeengn, dYrAaMs^ no
so MML C5 9^ k^roa ^"ear^g, aE sYl k`z+x^ 2eea^R ^^^ a7^ ^ sses a xegr^lov #^es s^ sz^^ ^x"RS^Rf
i+nsofa^ pmmm mom dopw MM, ENQ m€ 56£6E c#' kha sa^ s^a ^nssg rx ff^u^^ Ei9^ ^ Rzxu^29nreaterse
Rgoanf todk ow wq sCV4WWznm pBam d- ,xoa^ fzMnW=Y' iin im mme m I^ ^ts m
musit"Mmas fht 02ft md osy ncmv. mteznn& (P.) Facarpt is ase^ ppres^r^dtd ig malom 3702-51Y,
sr oduar '80*1 aosssaasa u€ At 3MAW ttsad 3=13 sr$ dnWhal
chs ns=sg d"suieacnyl $^ba
^i^ ^` ' ^, av^ ae#s^r ^utcY ao ELe ^^ Ro ^ticc; Nnsmwah9^ ^aA^`°. ^s^ ^ 5 t^
^ MAd^ WWM^ mnsch°° sesmamx a PM, m P-icqwowtn ^i} &^ ^;s^^m ^ aa^ maa ^BnaEk ^ ^ ^n^a ^ 3^uEy xe4 a
^ Rnme3ex 8^^ E^ ^^egp ^^¢6 kagozxS- -r^M =P=Ffiq^e mmoocl easo
do WWWaua ra4` ae Nwo gwff
ssadz mesa $N%Q ceT"ie},t XM tf dn "ftwit pAtd'tb vkz^ ,e+th- aza wu -qo&+e an =kdfxeg 9neae@& am ftacmfy: in ^
^^SAX¢,"" E^ SBa^ +sD^ € {t 473^4 "^ ^ ^ ^ ^i ^ ^s ^ ^ a^mcn^tt
s^£ ^ ^aS^sasee xE^t99^a ^ eaeas^ ^z^ z^ ^6uoaa^ ^ x
do Mowing Qmffw^o _ ^ a^c^aali^ s^ ^ d€^e^muz^ in ^mm ves^Pa gr^ees
aro U^Sd ^^ P3m^ ^ BSn^x ffie %x^i st£ ^
Ps^^so ^^ gam ^^ zztr^x^ ^ ^e 4 ^a
^ a^r^ ^ m$ ^$ ^ ^85"di-,
^^ s^xa "
voiN
0whAm mmkm tojEawk, vaRa€a s^s ---^VHim s`xsz&a6m su£ diom MUM&G& a
nc&
obw =^ Q ommmw sr^ ^roa^9s`*te ^ a^ asm^^ ^ ^ ge ^ ^,^ ^ be ^^4 ^ *'" tke
s^e9
F3r^ ^^• ^' 26a€ ^os aea^sa6rem ero$` a ^ ^K by 6^,
(* U =ma^r^E Ca^
^wpmosolRax
ar£ dMMaeiVa, or vmy odmr mmmu €e Sm thm faiz nmaki
bzaic hwB:z owc goro*=% fi"cS k dv-fsgam
XXX) ed"ms =Am to cqod opmogturg iae ft aaaa*= of fllst f's^ir mm&tt raft is a
xx9m aaC EPc
Cmed by g pwoe€ Ao k paBsA on a ^ bnis -ML Fwggw #arPmss wY9sas Cs;vsk„ m
8ss s7^ s^ HiRx hz^Bf^ a^ ^ aae ^s^rasn^f ^eea^ ^sa ise^eaar^ €ry w essa ^l¢` of ai imHe# ^ Eesze^ c^si^
.A .^^^. ^^
5--^^^^
H 822 § I
1990 Session Laws-FuU Text
(a) V&= x amtes4 tWmmwnbHe mdea 9 BU* 3^ ^te =twcd ncstm
byofoa^^^^^^^^^^e^^^
taa»v, kaw, or finasts`*g asfa qgxd,ad
(13) Whm eM gBV*s^z buwd
MM,-Abxa pt=n om bew af uhm'dh ^ fa^^s 8x^ ^rs^
W;dSic Fas sDM=k s' u MVA IMds d'aax al a mStusauEaaxea
ta&ea by 2ba ^^Sa sss^ brA66y n i92 eswu ^,Camc¢esq,
Ins 4k
pvver£y, axn
a-Fktw ^eas^ xwiaeaur oka* kw.
(F) fbe &4"uaa esG ae b-zltb Euvam wxb m anmrW smmd
aigi=tift owff arsorm I^Wwxcd ri9Ry 33*sswsk driuam m xnmm for
9h^ ^t E^irs^ fssa y^s cff a^^xsrsn 3^ moR asf^'rxt^ Spy arr ^a
bas3f a heaBBh V.= bzm2g* nrakbis th^ ^n tmdw Y¢aearsgm
OpcwA4 . zr 0; sRaBE be ¢e^.zvanunerad in mmqnWbe,e axi€h 9--aky
W=5#ed -an sv-P^=
(3) The addhkz af a fMpeaftw a adaaatnon Y#ffiram Mrzaax
cpCxa2w bp eer m bghwo1Tz kecxaB#s cr'M fia3* sxtd i6tg: zdde9am by
my "eam ac sm af 83e folowing &eBhh wxrimr^, nwu-mm of abo
A €x-e lirom kndw,yK bv*-dr sz: pazerxr-s
B^at^a^s^9^f^a^ ^nvar^ a a^ wmae 9ar
o€ my cibzz
r^x^aa ^m9e^ E
ck i^ ^ na I k4pAw
bs^p^ sxsee^ci^ ^ e meaE 2as be RL Mvbmmm* x,sesa-ata,^
(b) A mdiac e^^sts^ sc8rym m-39Am giaS;aAisem mfmo6ezxzBt£uw OaheX=i=^ W^ 8ss zrr czs`skim &=ssx, wb+^ &*
waxncc Uoi oa WO dm-E kkh4^ PgEsmgk zeednding beet era l'smked uz n= wuBJa snpvJln=u3ra^nc xyzr#mmM uzoa?Z3* rtx ac;g9c
MYTDPAUAW 33ftaUL7A8p Pa£8=8$ "EB YS=d yCCC BXCECiYfCBtiO1f 'kPFG& 88
-gophAi^^ b)r^ -xvns Bro-;-6z -ba -w Mkas°s- dMcaxEk or
""gDPM S^d^63A52ff ^Ucg gfAl;Ill n 3MSCwpw aw=mmt
mf 'Wwuuber aErzumc¢yw, ^ssd patncaggy, with rfg^ w8rx gcmsiN ara
cox*tsfive Isam fiaassr- The disadar safhreMA 3ba9a = &.,c Gaaidanw4.a 4'or casmsemw Az&yzg b^ awwslb^E by t[£* Assssresm Hea^
^^^ ^^n Cb? asf`4"sxacEirS&rg,y in a^^ts^aa^sisx
high-ri* p2ee9a fza ^z pmvnm s1 diar ieee (RX30) of this mg^teem A ctstkraG =8bdabz9mm 3mwa= or tbc ada#aem of myrshs^
^^c 09he=IzaEka kkrzkap tm an ^ssa^ =Vs'= Une dom
sea U=t aee WM aaud b=k bigb47".*, patnogs br aevamab9e oander
aRaa ^(RM) of tbk w4nma
a£e#th e; p ^ fimft YW `suclia zt 9ak wm bcmadmd MA
be& e*sfi€Md azs9er 2es2uca 3,ML07 efthe Rzv^ d°.o& us 3od
a Ba*a xj& Bbsaeaa^ fsft anmdrzt9 arheaogsw 3n Eb't pxw--Wmrg
t36R$wym.
ca°
^^^ ^ ^h-4 -VMy -&C;
Ao
.+8 xap =w ftdmokW faa^ whkb pEunaesuo apMt.-A &,ms b=
gnnted 4 rt^e Umaca 58a1es fbt9 and drm admh6sosxum md am
xs ^S3sd #^ aozie asf ubg ^SSSbI^
^ bemlib mma zftses
ea^^ rs^'#&,e x^azrxn^ ^ ^ ^ ^tt^ ^^ra^csx^r em^^
8cs be esgab^ by B.'^ tiaamhr 4 bea#Eae ss a msmaHek awaavaty
beask.- aeBditim 4tEse ezw tcdmak4y x^33. barw aaa zagact m the
lk^Y& eacc qozxeb sfi^ W ac8®bfim af tlx ww^n= 1rtg* saq d'ixe^b^.¢la (W) 1Df OEE3 MWW,
(4) "fbm zoV satim by sq pz:san saf medsrW e^s^^reuxud arn83s m
^
.^:
eata afcw eaala°som dwLsux &T unccze. 3`ksz xssg snk-*Cquaeain$ medkg
QgWPWaaX andms&am Ism mm of klm fdkmremv
€Z) Thn ^^xr sa^ EB.5 t^ ^. x^#sw. cac dae =Z^ of `s% ban ar
POHIM;
0e) 'k3m ew of en3ea 9Ws"m a^d my af&x acAivkeas M=332d to
Eht sr,aag;2Sxe3im as&" the M24Meet8. amc3 sft *canaut s'ow saTsw(3) Tto wmSaiedmcn^ dsvaq*aaaaax£ & awatae€6m of Li sar:w
btfiE6b ca= &eaft srx a dausw fs^M om^ ^ ^s^9Eb a^
&ORY ttn wwha-,
(6) 9ny abaw k sk ,$e.€2h eme mrvriz:^, bcd cqx^"st9rq w zs"3p,
^ 3tse z^b<^£^k ^BSv^s^ ia aarAa^8s^
^^^c ^ a^ P^ ^stv^rsR ^3itostcre fe^t ^ A ^ft of
D^ ^ ^, %^' ^p is^ ZZ& auaBhdn z"r&effi munft
aft= E3xc i^^asaa^^ss a the mreewabBe aed'+rnu.y fw wrbk?a e#s
M-£°sfb%ft via ^ae^^
^^ e^p a^9"9&^ f^s^$ ^z^ xsa E^3+^^s^* af at bes^tTs t^t.x^
ta) 14a imsage oa €=zd mpaa¢y,
(b) A ^8wd"eiuac ad'br& M&Cs,ed rssWxW smlioo 3702,.07
^ s$* Rzvnzd 8"xN* estha dm a noatvNinatim of be& rem zn
Adak moccaAurxk-J anait to n asewr; sdtnk E¢aa=saye?vcdA
aZFZ seek m fsom Sy pzd'xz^c +srsit w $s aziwzg aaagAw Dr pWaatg
res"c xnE+rn&c. toe ae* by a 9emlffi mr- feahYy we2Tx az avcnw
OOCOmmq we of abyetyfsya m czst or stwggr for Ehip wcms6ism
&Nt¢i'D* 8®6Affi&E in xke 3563,tGYb'SW'n AeBn ii{32t d€k wwcaY Ult bC%U ?in to be
RM4 xsyd w8emv ae^ K=sqpr4l6aeas 2nom^ to ao'essoe #hm
xx.zn-. bc& oe tat W ccm of 3ba^ bed e='p&6w oftht rsig ^k= avbk}s
de bo& wm xemuacd, vhidw*-ff ^a k:0, wzehk at tav-,,^Wpoigd
Rnd o^^ ^ ^
^y.
y, ^.,y ^y ^
,5
^ ^^
LS^ f.S"KYG^6 SiIlG➢S^^i2
(S) A XdpmfiCbC! 4^a bc& fmm LEYtl'6` ^^ jG6E"S^tL'^ w 83'¢C 10
odaaxY cwlng fift 3bt QW&M of a3a& zvakb7^ 'ac^ Rxes6it5; balffinp xd° ^ lemn axr Acn zky zt am s^ asft, rsr
bdss= B.w^ ^ cm facffitn8, bss'tttm da^ so= ==ty th;dam
Mdt-e mwmm Vare=daaA a'cv.he xkcak-,* rs£'b*& u^ wa*d z,rAEe
ft aAZ^g^s od' m umme u#m;Bn tegnr2b n=ber af bl* fzm iha
^assasd rrCZ"Ee2y ¢u thr- f`u-ak Acmdg =d an of Kbes fo99ONW sm s`zaYGEG^3k& 8n Me3,.,
^a31E! }ase, se^ dap Wam t^ue ^ o=r, =& fiuMiy
pu4ncip2ft ioR khz xck-Es^2sff Ma wim me &Zax ssa' 6ymalx su
=6= o&' iaaEa,= ko ^+r,xmft 5.^ ^
M ERCYA -10calm ant+emm m Aoas O=n #w=LY-fM bz& xa,
sa+. &e e= of a vi=dom af bfft so owdris gad
sszwb= cam fcc-ft aeas mu+e ag ffia aft= zb.4^ be#x tftsaba
vakh " mm 6baxe aes's^ aecwbm-n mm beft
ffiz) kEBgr 9M ackarmRatm V=4 the rdmeawd kdg am cuxp-.
az-6. - S--p nsoB"s-vkmags.-k wmrA pcdsa3x^ os kvd I axr R
oboztm aax mmbom cam boar
(irx) 741M MHUCOnems e9'sta Fre& do= orx a^ be a mmqpxim
4sM mf 8$a bcAt. by eatesmy a+l Mac Psm46M3 ^ami boN
m?cwmw as Imxa: lf# cbsw= a¢ ssxvncsorae ag= btdS zeay bs
r4c0qvAzrsc9 Ba icvd E mU obatrac ser aeWbaavn a^ bdg
(re) The =ssiecwW saeanctnAip oftboa be& to W swarmed fom
CXh hCWk}v n axsrssViIoDenk ok- bMU s`s d98W^,,^ by xss jngxzxsRaxune
eha£ is 4aa9amd boey bdo= the byU f6#nllzm.md k nmwed4 ceu&
^^^hg^pw
{vi) The admggau sns§W runt+v^^ do nog F=%A eaa gb% twmfsaim or a hrW : o-iim offenE by di2her &dft 00 3Rwe ft
"s-aeefliaee^ ^=odhax 2- day csn wh"sdu tNe xwfim d a3extask err*3
fi9ed 'A d"sri^ (R^c)§) sk' xk;S zmaos;
tv* AflBrx em se£omfims aubd crncncx aaN *"=^, vunzidw fic^e"Eity
hzs famm kim Oftm bak axa aw CaTO-Un3r of mc ^ fimat .
wlss& b*& ntc armai^&,
(vt`n3) DW: &ca',fficr^ sapmzl* the brakh &Vrorb--s ikouxe Vkexb sRr,
bmb aM zeMOv*d §br aa T;^ ago yrw aftear Tk^ mkcxwm sIA
xxzurmwgxbg m
^ ^deee^
°'^'7
12LD
LdpW =9PMaYEM A63BG}N7,*d 58A'7C"8X Mh3MfiM4
iadzdan +zseY eceasscy i4d 131 adsrx &GDAY w xn+DAm de,' bv&,, zs
€n Than. t" mmksm dosm
NoAmuy W" sdbmft m= 2han SwCaty'riee bz& u; iB
asfbaft m2agnaswd vz vbo^g &zd ncff^= Cam bm%r
3m= *z# RAM. a+bAa4aw €eda &ad murnca mewbxitx me bvd%
oaaea9r davia"sm mmgl ef 8gs^ nwcem
W) A adaeaeesw rsfboft qS;a meu igst wq&*=gEEft esfefisaaiienu
MTXCI of this gwBim dka aMk br axymsideed st uxriawbk soiw-kyo efto at i£ Wx^ kha a9zrzeekbm Q£'=sacw;A}4k- M9af* aobligbe%
by ^fivw- W44 K Rk (s). - {9) af dig -zs'o&
M A Maw&asem afhmOM be& to "a rsm^g bzd^„
^ r^ xxc4s ^9y ;1n ponb^rx^asn^nfl'^ss^m
€sa^itt^ ^az^csAu^
-AIUGUS€ L5, XWg in
xmds.nev avkb Ybz fid€aiwim Rrfz^,a==M -.
(1) No ha*w a=tq MM tag b V& aban np,^* Anrxt zexBl^".eca4c- of
neeod fmir acwm #nn 4weaay s6^ rzWzg €ae,6z pia== zQ devffim
(k)(?{d} m&'ffis mmlam
1-20 No baft Mmbv^ divagisnzs -42U be
srew=6 by r, pmvkkr vmmwn ztrzEea T`zdr ^g a am °°^^9
TMa^Ey
_
4nb"^ No #^ ^s^s row$s^ a vwffictsk ^'^ ^ g^^5fi^d ^
aeae w ^^ =7xd) of ghaffi a=sft Aoal tce t^ve^'atcstbra oc
wmftd in m Taw+ab3 evi`dqpod mdcr p"c bcsAM wosail mr.s
far dr, psrym Qd'dmcneebft sw nvazbs of 9cmg-t= ram Ws
dodway be w®&&witado 4ft MS. t'zy) No br& A96 bc 2gppaavaxS poftaawt w davzsaates (RMd) +2f
e3sfs ftc&s, mgese EM b^W Qfxtffias amd dammskea'kex e^ ^
apozsiw ¢93a8 6#se bt& wig W s&kH=^ to PRRx^ wkhx &cv¢3e
asfm M= Bb" &3.zty dq% la as*w k€r,a^m diwow af'
bsr^^a in crtaz+a4zsra"ssg arsy+ ag7pmseS pv;nr,Ek dig p7absc &saAffi wmce^ mpoang tss kbe dxgm4ssArxeB +i kerai139a
tbn ae a^e0r^ #r^xe^ ^sg p^a^ mrcBY zv in tbu bed fbrmze tbaa
€be.^6y days ira baviezci "ra abk to dmaaftaw- qud it newu 14 vx^d
fas`xh ciTwt sss *eae a pad= in ^ za=ilb< O DIW waema mm
& ft aowsnbk to E6m pasmE xieWM the thiaty^wy PMW bu8
iKm rMb;e. w dmw(y) bF43 bws r1aE# be gwvvw peemiwx to g9x8aim wmeo of
#tsis Mclam c 4m ft LowiEut£ c= :^iY^ dzmmmm xrt abz
NQ+=bMM*=Mba am
.^.^^X% ^1
5-1016
1990 Senzon
ea d#^e xa s^^g aesss£dr £R p-wm am P£s`sa£a ks^c£
^ maanxV jx^s^s.. C-WxrMhf cssxd dr-rauiaazass ZEW ^ae it red.
vie =eas#aaat;
(5)to
^ a^as^xt
£^ to
b^ic
wis^86n
a^c^aE ^^ cvr k^ 9a^ s^. ^a^ sss^rtl^E^g #1^ ^s^zri^ ^£sa^°°ra arx ^dinW ^.£Pn razx f^a3nap 9^ e^ sae
aaamsa^% ^srxry ^ar^ ^ ^£ure^ ^^aAa^ ^ee xtlscda9aRs s^ ^d a^xsmE^ e^ ^ ^^ ^^ s^^ D^s ^ ^ar^ sos nrs k^^
^sa^t ^e gsa^s £k ^cdax^c^£ as9 k^ ^'^ ^ a£ (0 ^xersa^9tizz
^ +^zg^^ s® a^^amx3t^', tlrv^s mr me . . d^d^nCazx ^m#i^tlid ^^s^s
^^ n s^z^ s^esv^ e¢ ms^ ^ _ ^^^ax ^se ^^as^£seyxs a^ aaFtx am
^#s asattsas; s^ ^ ^xtln^ eea k^ Aeqns^as ^^^aa ctl^lx^^za#ex ^p^,
^ta^ l^diad#7e d^ axt Y^ ttss^etl^ ksusr^^ ^^8 r^e^esztg
,nWp=nd ta d, x^x^sF ^
=' ^x^rodst^ ^sau^^^ ^^aa ^^bE^^^^ nF a#zax ^^ss a^ am ^ ^eaa #^as &^; a
0) m ^n^^k ^ rs estl^ fr^rsss sa"jor;
ar^ h9ax^a£
^c^e a &^se#^
go^^^
^ ^zix sar^s"cse}
^ ^^
^€b°^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^raa'z rs^^aa^te"^e^ts
^^ £aa
^sE^
^€a^f
ixa ^si^
^i
^u£ ^s ^t aves&e £k^ £^ ^ sx d#^ _^ ^a^ -r€ ^sff sYs4£da b x^^, aa e ^a. kt^x mamm^ ^ aaa #^ mc^znbex
ho,
axz
am
^
mr^^k6 scx^ ^
OEa myar^t sss6 be=U68 ^ 3sn £zo do € ^^asue
a ^^ GbrB ^ g^ ^ ^A£a^ d @ Yssbzk ' ^^aC oa r^'^a5
^d;tlE ^ ,^CC ^tlG«Z6k'ifk3 ^3fl' ^ 3'mY^ '^t^.;L'tl^ ^txt[^31^`
.£k^.^ItICY^'%'d'b$^`'^^ &i3^i^'.tY:^
^'YJIX^ ^21C ^'£ `A^FB:^I 'AtlAR?^ $^BE.
. ` C^R^33itCt>^A
RA^ ^14
B^J^^SF
^" 8S^ rfDA''s£t
33A
^fi^
.^^^4
R^+as^2 Ud^,. ^3'srs^ aao ^n^ ^ ^ ab£ acMaz x ^7^^ dSfl sai ^
¢^ ^m ^
^R ae^^ ^^gflr^dd^
%AQ
^^xs ^3#fs a^flvgy ^ ^ ^^^c^8 ^ ?^ d ^£s3 WPan^ay c^r zx^Raaa^E ^#^x^azsi 3xa s^d^ tl^e^
Ax hzogyx£^£a
Yo ^ 1, ^
d^zr^tlrt^£e^£yesm
^ ^ #6 ^aa^ ^# ^ ^^ auad
^sud^xs sea£^^ 4^ Fsdr^^8 go^xsr^ ea^ ^'sr' 96e^ ^ gd dsaai^ sxra£x ^^ ^ k£^ ^a £netmafi ax^atld^9adx ^B9e ^^
^ ^^adady urt^ae ^^ z^as^sr ec£:.^ BaYlua^ uzm5cgl
c p^ ^^d^^s
xa6^
2b5^'aky a^d^ ^^^s^^ W6,4 o^sd tzv #ss^ s9cx g^^moaafl
^ E^nffi ^oou xtlnd ^cr ^^at ax£ ^tlesd
z^a £x^ ^e#s
^gz ^¢g €vsd ga^ann
a ssx xs^aabma^
sd-zxas tcai^ne
^ 9'ar^Baaakea^
rstmd ^ at,
e^>
^^
^&
a^
nm
^a£^ xzsnf#i^tr
^ax 9ea^^#^R k£^£ ^s ^e^e£ ^ ^n2^s^ ^ sa^ asr^sYgtl ^¢ ^^ aeeW yaags aa s €a^ d3s^ed s£+^ bt a
^ +^ a>[^+ksFecs ue?R^ ?#^ak akauaan^ es $9^) smeafl ak£ jzaaan aa ^ae^^6£t
^rsas^ {° 9•
s . ^ ^Q ^ Iro8 n^ 3&0 ^ k ^^^^ a' ^^r£ ^ ^ ^ ^k^^ x^ s ^ax^ £^sk aeae^as k4 e
F '^ N£R^°9^ A €., #^d^6* r^avs^ztro^e $^9 ^4 E#^s ^a^ ^ u^d ^ ^*^^^^ Fxa£ee^sc^a^ ok
"= 6 ^ • ^da'^:^ .^ ^ r.^ £^Fd .tll.^ d§fi 4vB&7tl^F
^
e^C)tl8
^
^ LkD^TE^B
^ r^Z^>£^ AS A ¢krc ai^c+x
uf^'be
_ 3>k
^E e®
Yb^^a^e
hdE
3^^e# sja&
^#^3P^s^t4^?FR Td"M^' libv ^si"Tm
s^#smtl^zap ^r
'^N^„^.d5,^"•^'?^"^Bfl2.'^[1&^ 9^Fk^ R^s¢fi ^, &^ ^bd g^sneur s^k kr^ ^£rtlod
•#"^ffd &g ^^„`g°^,'^3 g^8^ib'^x 3'?^6°9#3^S ^3^fl.k 7 ^^F3^ ^ ^°ef#^saa ke^a
sGt t^ rs a s^Fnusg
aiaps a£'^ ;^ ^i.^xsdon
w^ ^^^ 33^^ ^^ r^R 3 a& ^6 £^'^E ° ^^^ ^ks#s ^Hca^ro^a»a ns sa^tltlngt&^
^g^3 COM V*a^'f£5^ u"s ook iiftdacU dh, aaBe>raknaxa of
^a arm e t^ ^t>F t aaees^°^ ^sd^ se^s x^arofi^t^adax^ a^^^^ras^xttaz 6E eg g^^ ^n:uacx£ saa £^ sx^ axs^sr^^
^ta^essr^ £ds #^ a^
GioML
-^kzzz^fl ^ ^ ^ ^nun€ nea^#xre xd ^ prs^ 2#^ s^pr^ ^ ^2 ao 3tsd ^
^ shaYk ^^ #^° me A^^^ ^ nd k&e °^^€ ^tln¢£ nflR ^93s^ r^auxz^se^z esf ^{i^xs ^m ^^
^e^s sh^ ^^etz^ ^txr a #001£raats sA _ aax ratle£ ^^ ^t£9ein ^Es't^^a
^^^s taR.^gaCeaaz^ ^^ dq^xgxe;ear,t aar hcald > '^ aada^aEaahnex ^4^ urn r^exzxea^
am w xsrrnV
3 baak nrs s#xRSu ^ s9$ ^^q^ ^^s#s ^4^ ak t£aas tl^8i^ az
xOae k^ aaa a^ s^ ^# d^ kbs rs £bc ^x} ^ ^
^^ £^^^ PP^c^€x^4 s^rir^ss^ e^ +^:&
q^nss^q^ ^ nr^8^ ^ ^^ _^a^tltl;+e^P^reg^ian£
^ex es a3a o-ad #ee^#3^e a
^ £v^^d€^x 9ascs^%%z^ ^t aahee ^ x^ ^ ^ k£e^ ^
x s s^^ ^ ^ #^ ) ^ ^ ^tl ^ a vekwd^ ^mst sssa^ xizsaa s^^MM'm
_
s^Rr^ ft v Rw wo aqlaa^6a^ aa ^ --3^aatl ^ns £^; mar ^
.s^ - s^rs,+nr33 &s cd^'zeesa ^u ^s sss>^^ a^aan ^zs"me^#^ ^^
°^ A&X
knat
uous
ale ^ ^^ ^ ^ na^ ^ass&zi£a^ wsa^
3az^^ c^&
wool ^c
sr F ^oo EW- -lim 3701.07 e&`gh.
^ E^a cdz^a^'cr oa I a^s^ ^z^ ^S9 € ac^ctlm^ x^ea ca^ aea^a9Psae^g^ ^t ^as^ ttz
f< ^^ ^Jf x^flax^'dc^ aeznsqrn^ ^nn^
^ s as. b
6^ stld^i#paza^ s £oirasrxet das a
^ ^^$ xxeve^2^xus ^
^zus ?es ;^t a. #^'^ ^ zs^
^ ^ ^v ^ an^
£tl°^^^ s ^^^r^,R rsf fi
^ eaz^asw ^
^ ^
^a^^ em or £da^ ^q^ ^eav esc£ d^ro l^ ^xss^zu^ sva r^d ^^st^ra ra^ ^s aaay iz^
^^ ^^ ^e^ra sa E b ^ ^
^ ^^ ^x#s#zg%cara xax s#s^
^s^a^Fs s #^ es^e#^ s^e
^ wiurx^tlcnm bte ZaNch
^g^ Y3^ ^ ^^ s^x E^^ ^efl ss^a^#s^ be^s Etl^ss;a^ ^^xw^ ka^xa
^ ^x#^efi^ aa^ ssa^ t£ ^ sszabr &^eku^ k^a off saeoY cxt nsa the £^ a cak£trx ^p°gs3' ^ee 4^s?a# fftsxeeE zr aC ss ri^ge^d ^s
;: a^ e ^ ^m^ttaaae ^in^ ntla s cx^es#'^ ufzz^ 3^za-g^F^ %rs^smm4iog 3s:E ¢5r M#"3£ka, is nzo"d £by
-A"^^9sr of ^ ^a ¢s£ssx^
^cR s^s^ 'o,n on gsrss^ £x pw we ok' ae £u#>d mmwtor 4 4 eseoa^ vxd nco 6#ti^ ^ o
9 . £sx£t^ tt ^ ^rs az*ssaki^ g
a £#>e h
^Pxas^k
^Z£ rxxmeR¢
x&v rzki^^^a
35sd
a rs ov^?2ft 6aqe,ke§ag
k=Fb$tft £oo krsaa2es atst cnI8sm" 'examd tl^gtl^a^^
^£R ^ m'^ r^r a#,a xa^^ bo#^ ^^ xaa+^ ^x rrxeE srr
3, ° sF =' E: £Phti aax# may gy nombzr xXeasB a£a^dsa x
: i^tt^t k^es8 t^hs ^^^ae^ z xa^sk'sta ^ ^a^^a 8 n^Y^a ^ #ze£^ gg^^ ^ #
^^
^ ^
^^
z^sa^a
OF ^ea# mW seesar^.
£^e^
krovas Ca^ ^ x
x ^z
"
x^mrabd
da
esiv
tvm
nrsa h^ ^ s^ ^^g na e^ ^^zu^s ^e
akx of tlDe^d ^ Fbsucs3 zm a;x xrda^zra^ ^^^ anke of ^a9' ^ sxz£ - a^sar^ 9'ax aN
^ md r^Entx£* aa ^xu*1^ ^sas£x^ i^dZ ^% Agig 358ag reonan raE=dar ym; £^ax
^^^x6^ as^5
a5kiwou
' As^ssr^e ^ a^ ^aa^
axt ^
^^skrss9 ^dx
nast#sa^d^
elsE
5gaeo
¢abo
zxw 91x cxsYttjfisXft a'd' xtz^ ^aaaia^n aoY^^ssr^ xrertla^{a' €^ ^gs
^s^ ^^ ^R s#xa^ aof ax^#^x ^xegv atd"s6^ x^c^zo^ 9zaad ^^s
" ff^asxe ff^ca s^^a €a^^^ x smnm^ ^ds
^ " ^k*^^
^ i si3^au^ s mi^k a^£^ ^^^ ac^+r^#g zx 2^c^ ^vz2#s s^a seaa^z'^ ^ rs s^£^^^^ ^^^ie^e sa ^a y^as tl;^e
.' ' - ^; a^ ^ fi^ ^k Isxz^ s3u^s ^E^ 3&o s^ ss Eaae^ra a^ ££a^ [6^Y tln^aa^ °^
^ as^Ream^ m ^sas ^
^^ a^^ ^^ s^ ^x e^t ^ aw^°^s ^s ^ bxxd xcs^a^,+aa^'s do ssrsa z^ ,i^a t#s, xxsase3^
sef s'heRn wram
se^rc^'mht`^
by rus^a^gaik^ a8ae^
£ um
s2s ^9ae^adz^sa ^ ^d^ ra xx^fise^
^^^g
^
£h^ ^r mm i!ee xussrz ^' za^sd ^ s
C-.vz2a^as
noaa
1^^0 SesSion 7.,m-s---FuR'Jr=t
the fl^f^ ofm&a;s3bm AASAd-&-oaASa 37E69M ed 9c
c A, he9apsw ff"^o sa WA e#sc ds"su= A>& bzdth
A^cYSS^^
m
ss^'Me amab= ed ^s^
3ve& szf vzx*bDviZa9 wAeaa mia'v dm ;aftr-, cow;aeum esrttm adu-
5--1.01T
R822 § I
-,* » a- -'6,^.^,^r^A ^
g#,r^ ^ ^ eR ^ ^z ^ aeASfd^
^^^ mma^^ 26^ ^ E#^^ ais^ ^Za ^3EX 9aA^r 2An ra&^q g.
^3 t^zz #f^^^ ^ A-eawaboa=, r^e9^e^sa^ #ss,s
f.£^ 2Ym^
^An^A=am ra^^qap f^ea vsha, & b. K
^ x^ACSSreA^
^ 2^ak^
h-p^ ft bc*w 4ba mAraix the
m^r^x zs^uxsns^ =W'v=EAtR2
to mufF ➢AR'2YC svclk Ari3 0$Y®m=j
as ^ Ym >^te^^ eAesile^ €Eerrn^ss ^ ^ ^
6D go& h-puk- tEt #sr&k =uim dm rabsAk tbc
beds zm rmwrzd ^axr 2t imsk ma ym afl*svr t^aZ ada=aoaAi «jtw
Aaw*A,sfi^ am W=gkE4-
$^ A-% aw-=4 mt" iwEA WArr avwebnn M a thk j,aa
A3so amm mul A a ff^' &%w=g r^qer^^rxs^
AaAy -Pka9 armAAd.i#ure easvaaHo*d in esdq= nzddna^ess,
zt^^ -^ --.a3'PuixB by eaer bmvibi w wqesm a' W"m, n.a
Bos thzsa ftee-ftaan dam
• (3) No kmv w -y M-szm zcxaAe dmn E^^ r- ¢xe& an iat
86e a sf bob rssk3gk &A Mube -cA mc^ b.
b*cb =d mmsrm Acwt*m =0 botE.%
(4) A adoWim *'F bc& tW sszgU Me saq^ sd dzvwm
^m&'ej^z mw3im dm9ds4ut bccozsiaa+rdamwzmaWz=dvilyx
cvea if eg .mmb skAa dcflrdcnm a MAM" zaivity cst^ by
c6rr"sx;d- or (3) of Wu axEdm
a#o= aem s"scia& all ambdaeawy soar
^iA^ Sso^a^iBy 3^A es k=w iz xss m3giAAg am cwmd s9az=dy
ub txsEgHEyF by pbYiciam Smumd umeEgr lct^ 47?lk. a the
•Rovise£ ^ FESad ren &w
AI. um%T SS, im.- -.-,sR qsai^^ ^ P-^ Wf^ ^5s3a^
whSS, xAom 6^ ^M gmg sux A&eAh &- pk2kigsa wl%a aawm
^9arN3sxtttvnm Ord z. mqa= 9oram gxAaqppsunn fim aer
sml-km TPEU M 8aY 3M EQ-'83sa RcwSwg Cs1e^
9am^
^, $.af,. '^AAA R^H8e3xP A7^i ^^ SdfA^B $^ A^%h" i'd^ A^88S $^,AA
sA aft mecfsc^ ^en^ 3^w aHcvswo a dxff-miaen a^
°^ma6AOa9z^A^
zaxzcui &=14° =d mmvgm=d A3uv €Lg^ P"C 9tea#th
OYMUzi
wskpt &sr dku9narm u a ^.
M'"sma xWA hcwi3sr mram ahmpm ffiat da " &ocaee5cfi
^ ^ mdrqmkau s4^ mea, htpz &%mox amR 2ssss 9srmdxea
Bok 01W to vb" kwes%au ^cnssk^tt^tia^ pm vrmadnnftmd
ftnos dh* mmt moos9 mkv5ar'm=
$flj d1 ffaa^aA^ ^sx^ =dEr 9;D^m 3701-W
zftk R."rixx5
^ ^ ^ ^ 3ame^PeeaR ^innd ^ e^r, su^^
-001Y-fm Ps^r ftnt of ftmW 'srrpaEicza &sx
^ ^A^
^ g
^rs
_
^
s^eraaa£w ^ '+^ ^dnxi^ #=
^^b^
^r.a^ 4°odeczaa2d
4 ^w pc&a3xk
^ mundcr
^ora
-07^pZGA8AdA9F
Ubtlsfi..
od 9a,d W-w =^ kvs a Wa8 a at kawY a^m Is=dXgd fift 'AOeat--i pwessme V-iaE ca'e md pDdktic Amu2e caic bad^, usad fxs
whi{ha'i k-$ ^i -fi- $Sesf F9CAA$ Lbf
8®IDIxa ]Sap$7lSm d8Dd-sf- ''fee Wezk% twsa -1-dz€ yem ag;^ s"ffisFvs'#3mb lm mm
yzB,GS ^^y
6^83}IIA;'&. PM$ygGB fi^ a b*spp7dv 3f thu
)AAAqiw E's mgistcmd
^' ^ ^^^•^` ^1^+^gY3',^d. ^7f^ ffi 3^SE•^2Y'^ ,^SESGffR'{^
aA^ d^ c3zn9d='E MR= za the zAqAn'AwA;mes of t€evre:aam •
adtbas =am
`A1EA;v3-A2bk^^9s^s£^` a{^xrs ma xerP^ae^ ^ xa£ocaxea^t C"
^^ bols Ees sbolpaw fiE^a &me#rm #xasvi* awa43eurl do sm^
^^^an oftk ^^g rnpirmcka am ^
Q^$ The &a*W to Wig" Fhc be& wa>➢x9sP Ear maamed§ k,a cno8
Fm^^^ obst^ AY'yjA?S','^ '9Sid1Skh the pmmdi% tw^ AA989BAft
The 2naAa &mpsgb iv the sdmseisms m k=keg
A^G"" 5, IM,^ ^ & PO9a2am aimme axs twAA #tam&&d aft
ffim1mmd 3q£ -M 'ihm B AaadEw mswumd 304'A2 zdiaA~r4ttn a
^ ^ ^ .^^'^zff.x^'^' 5,
^s ^B ampv
&^e ad' mmA^ e^ esf ^em^ q}mnsarza^ bA^
(3) ^&'sss^ T'- xcbsatnmm ae^AAxs ^9Aa SsxA^i^9 ka wtzeBa t&* ba&
Aaesm^ ^ mkcaud offm, go -,, hoviw wiEhmm efiar; mme mau'Fy
F#ea,t mm sim'6aA 2n lha 9m-ps".fs^ ^^ ft wrgx aAA. aamuMbw;jf 2>ok
9-cft-, -z9 ask= of huwfire m=m wah'it s#s,x
COWAY. %-- asogmEeA®a,y Sesa^a=ft sw+ak& be¢4s 9as 8he baaL H^
^thwy ^a BFie t^'sse 4 aasedk 29en ^^.€ Wzthexe A^
^ £hna2 ^^ ^ ^aAa A^ e^muA#y B^A 8 m ^€e^ska
thd ^'d*
^^^
bavsw
sA^^ad^^g
^rae^,
^ ^3 3&a s^e ^«
^.s"s^3y ^ ^m ^ ^S a q * 4 d3a xASn& the e^ft ncsts'am that
h^ft€ ffift x£ "rg nrimm'tv a^m &u&RyWzmts W ^5^ auatcn
an acn=umma tre mkcft +sb5tem Baeft trA tha bmp^a€ the hmpW
ft1t AxnasfiA: 913& RaT42. sksEU MMMM
10 axaux IAA9o
(a)A# ^-A sc4 &ys £d- &. zr^aa^adia:$s ^ s^ ^eies^
^^ ^ ^ ^'- 4^ '^'EB^s the desa^aer ^af' ffira9F3a ^
rsaxk^ ai"mtmA trs reEftuft SEee•$eft,..
FAeh 0:10Aaeeon imxssflwx sso mceAO daza twcAAty'fivv "&Wd
to the ^ ^ ^# g^ ^^vr^A Pzm^ eaa^s
€ssi^saff^^ qapgnn0-si of s^d bwe J^^ &cr kx" #a=
^ 3ss &* matr &a-piuB, EEer ww sASrssbZZ ted"zqooaw be&
aae 93se &SS ?-^ gra^ft ig £4+.^ =%mgmA^ ig icd^arxl by
my.p- -2 axC ft 8^1 ^ana^ ur bub 33mvo8+'^"d xa the W^"
ftlocsoaa;
^ ^^^ ^ vw-Mv rd'n--bsz& to ¢>'-==.ssaftd ^
=Kh btzvnwz *f ^*d bift ^ ^^
Ag^ that el ^sn8x^^ asa^ €t^^ 8Iaz- ^s Pa,.p^s8a^ ,x^
6s"
mcmreea9 x%iAh Ew depuftmma. of be2ga3s^ m¢g fa; Bxixndmmg nngnam Bhe
t^m hessgAaS*k
(^),rm R*XaALz*= ^d bad rgzcn-ES & RUt Mank em flll;^ draMi.
sadi- AafAt h-ft merri- $y rifficr #sa^w on zhz {#07 e^irus
r diaa^fp
^ft 00 dW wsr wMr9a Z&aA: ssAAtam 4 yntmt 35 fild md;,
4w°sxam ^^^) ald^k uakm;
$9^ Y^3o ^ arc^z ^uAw d^ d^sEy^r& ^^^s A^zia
^^^this »
3n".^^ ^ ft-,lmw
asg -4 " b^^ sbxda& RX 12-i^-"
$^^^^^^^^^MN^ ^ACZZ$X"' Mtg "9"M 594.W bMOZL3r6^ AS
IN MMON 5I81-M OFrAE REVam CWX
_ SANM
^^^ ^ ^^
A^M 97^ ^ ^ 3^^ T^ Xrin-M
MDE
^3A. ^ "9^^ ^' ^^^^ ^^^^ FSF'F+.B€V%1W4G AM MFiRITTAD^M HEALTH s&"s4liDARM AM
'a^" MVMG AS MM STATE SM'4EY A4UNCy FM Tj^M .PMMM 4F "^^^AM MX OF THE "`s0CfALqEaMR"k"Y AC'f°`° 49 STAT. 620 (tk35), 42 U.S.C.A - 301, AS
TM DE^'.^XTMU^7 MM-L CpJMV +tDXrf ".€HM
^UNCFKW M ACCMDANCE WrM TEW- REMM^.'^RQ9M
8"sUWM-WM AND k'^^^^M LW)ED UMpA ITIX
Xm AND = 9'tt` TtHE UMUDSTATES SBMr-,TARy OF
&MRLM 4Z1D H97MM MRVS'e AND WYM SE^".'^'^SfM
OF &FAL$E SHALL ETM WTO Adr'^MWn WrM
RE(°PiRD TOP^.,
° ^F[N^..
^Mm w&BR 7M DWiYRTWX b
CW HUMN SEE.`^lCM AND '^ ^ STA7$ESDE£°ARTV2M OF MALTH AND HUMm smWC5. TM DMr_
TM WAY AM ENM D=. AMEEPgEmn wn-a '&"M
DEPIMTMMiT i3F H€ 3MAN.WRB'1CM iB&diDMt 'd6HfldZ THE
DEPAKINWr €3F d'EALTq$ IS DEMONeQ,I-Eb To pZRFOM
^^ ^^ E$ ^Jt..'^?£3^ s^l fl 9..'^5 `^B S R ^. #. 42 ^3F TM.
97iX D€REMR„ M A,CODR9)ANCE W.S:.^^^ Cn&prER .E 19.
OF TF^E EE't^s
'°^$ ^DF,.SHAM AO.8Pr RUUZ N^CE&
SARY TO rapumm'a"T9iE SMY.Ef' AND cmRmFWA-DON
^^^^ ^ SXn1ED MMING FACWTIES
S AND
NUAM^ FACRATIES ESTABUMMD B'X dIW UMTM
STATES WJMETAR"§ 4^ MALT$ AND HUMAN SM'dICM
'€JNDM Tf%7M AVM ALN5^ = OF 7"&M ""SOCML SBCUp,
rff FbCT ° AND '&'bM , ^.^ ^'^M ^°.^^^,I^^ bLD^a^^E€8Ns 5911.35 TO 5111.63 OF THE
REVISM fODE TIM R3CaM S.iALL }NCLUDE AN ^M.RMAL'PROCEM BY WH,1CH A FACE8W MAY O^',^rZ A
REVIEW 41IF DEKCW442S THAT ^^ BMM CnW ON A
STo-^^ OF ^^^CM MADE ^ ^^ ^EFAMrgtffiN"C 4S^ HEALTH UNDM SWnON 51€1.42 OF "d &^F
NEFISED MM TiX REVMW SRA'a BE MNDUCrM BY
AN MWLOYES OF THE 33EPARTMENT WHO R3W NOT
Pe®^ ^^CMA7 Z M AND WAS NOT OTHYAw3,m ixvC?LyM
IN AW WAY^^E TfM SMM^ W"C^M EM_pW'aM CON-.
K-0xbmyD&mmErr # M
M......,..^
^pFX• 93
JIMs. s . = . ^ 822
SF+W%.kvlV83 rm 6'.T
.uPae'K9
1990 -ScMiOn laws-----Fu.1. Tcxt
6J.S.M^ ^xkRL%E
^^^^^^
NMAM+,°d°x'HO TM S=%Y^
d5]'ad
Wea[R^
^
TMT ^Rx✓.z
TM DR^BMR NEM wOA ADOrT' AS ROM AN1' OF
$sH^ RWb.Y.^nON„^, GUMELLNES„ 44R FROCED$TRES
MM XMEH^ ^^ XM AND = OF IM -40a9eL
SBCUM KY ACr'° BY TF3E IMM grAl'PZ SBMdETARY OF
^^o'^'R AIPM HU1d,AN MRVIMS
gH^ ^maazzztxma t^ ^qs fs^
^ hafim ^ a^enC9R --k wusss 2m $F9cameH %cs xs ttb
H-Be#aA -&, -arxzHeHe =aaraa^ fm z#H
nsas£-6^ " &ft a^ dmY wg m aaxwss&m8 WAlh Cbzgm 374H_
amnd 3799. cE?hn RCs23^r.d ca6a ur WA Mg: awx z^^ by ^
'y&l.* '.x,iZcmR',:^^'
93F16^
€L-- ➢nmmmbc€mF^^^^^5adm° mau^
^
sdd ^ ^H 9hC ^,^kH%£^•.
d4DfSl9 tl`.r Il3'CEm
me 9.3 de' ed kCC tb".c'3m 3W4.4,4 == iDr £hi°
^^, ^^ by baaa^ B=a^ d^x^ 1^^ssa ^ 6^iso^ ^x eh^
(e5) ' kHHe 37MECTM d3F HFPiLTE M.k3 WVE9'9GATHe'
Ad Y C63hPtu6N^ ^E RECEI IM COk^CUMM, A H83ME(H) EMCE" AS RBZUW
By f,-Oi3XT ORDEP, AS NE€^
ESSUM FM DM O6.H^^TMAT&oN OR EwmawEmH
OF ANY ErAT89^^ SMAI3YdO '^ HOME% OR Vi PRO^
AND ^b3W^B ^ ^" 3"H^^ ^'H"^T3^1, °
^5%RFC^D^§
^!f&^ €3^' ^ Es^ D^i^.H^" OF HEfk.H.."^ H
MFAU M£ R^'eAN ANY £'F T^ -FOLLOWSMS"'z 3Nt3RM,k,T9ON MMOLrr nE P^.
^6=t2Pd CW THE NDMDUAL OR OF HES S^"s.Ai, REPMENTeB.3 Iva
(a
p^) ,11m BHbEH"HW €3H~ AN^
4m7 THE IBSMTfff OF p4.NY MDMD6dAL WH5$ UMM3H'H4
A €DMPLWr AB3OU'H" A H4DW
TkW M>MaTTY CbF ANY INH aA IDUr5L ' 69H£b HsRCBVHYES TM HaMECTOR. WITH DmOmAAtOHb AB42g3'a" A
f• .
0) ne 211^CIIL nRoak6'h^a#'Y'c, -d =-93ma3 wxair+ez fee hZe
pmqss9ed by esLh ^utF of hnKxpp^
0) Dk-tr,?.k =Vzzx-a,. `a^nnrEia^ &zs£ sm8 gimn8axf £ff mmitAnd,i[,
^Bius^a3 ^^ ma PammH£y Qf fa*
ofmmc; ^^^^^^irustasA^sbzgarnr^Etye^a's^z^
(^) M- r2di= o 3c wlmwd mm
fho OPz xf&l^lic2 ztOd Hru4mm zwwd^ Eco Ea ^z^ by such boma,
(a) 11- H°i31B8 ^C RUL°tO cmaedi may MFk AR.3dSPT
W110- addAfi-W d:JA- ,'Pgg -vmmy Bdb ^Y^'
i1'q M 27ft txtrm3-.^ fbz
^#aau^ 3?21.s3F gv 3^Ho0g xued 3^i.^ sad k^
(C) 'a "V9.9Eg M= CfiIDd= d8v%dBEy (^) of £Htll^R 7.QL$iol6
-oecEn^g mc rsm9-a ^sax^s^er^adsaxag a^3ies^9 aa ma 3amc,
EE3^ FwOW-- b- --a $beBH bs7e4 1➢ 2w +znsaFYeiawim £3ue effcc&
-.^ ^^ ^ Yf 4^Y^ ^'C:C'P8S2^ ^Dk+i ^C%VBs^S ZLtiE^'
®^ ^ ^sss^
3+,^.a,{HCSa,e
H. + E&. ^rss^^ ^m
kh^
Pft-¢€ ml4cd ia msE 3E(aaa:3, 'Rhe m3^.x pmmeYm
uug qsrx,1S^cafiwsa ef ➢ GLDA= sidfs :aH➢-,u he[ w ^m
^uxtiyu^re8 dr^ee ac
^raiq^aaazs^ pAdd^^ aad P-=hysy,a wo;b^'hy Kbe uaeaw
^ ^' f3^}]iE2^$,^S 2f$Q. ^^9 ^fCf'Ntl6lLS 2^kt^A' ^'BYff^.^ ^$^'^
p
&bOME
AND YLts "QuE'HMD 2A) AN'h "'Ou""$IO3'g `HHdt,'T WOULD
HEdD M DmaAil `€'d'd^ ^iff
OF ANY DWMDU, HL
DWOUBM M 3D€SqWGN (AXExss) TO (c) CW'3`HiB SEX.°nON0
0$ AN 1A^".sEqCy OR MDHVMUAH„ To
Wk3OM YM
amid. 1419 of the -,NaxW &xg^&Y .#V, 49 %k. 620 (1935), 42
DMFZ€M M RBQLTWMa By M'E9^T ORA.'dEk OR MR 'HHE
U-SZA.. 3E99.q m mmeHcsd,
ADMMWMAM&E OR MIFMCDOW OF A STATU"k'E
RELAMNC, TO HOMO, '&o RELT,An mF4pRMATIoN
nrnmm (A3qa) oF Tm mmox s HA.tx
^wr REXAM T&E kwoommom WMM"C Sm nxmmm^ oF THE %NDRwuA#. wHSS wouLu nE oR
KFASONdoR^.'^° 'IM To HE BH 6mF"Hr-=, o^ £^F Evre`y ^as^^n ^^ ^ ^^ Hiausne^
^ L^s^4L ^Ev T^ka^H^s^, Ub3 M ^ AS^(.`9f
OR sFs^i3H apOy fiw &92z tk lSmaw sss tbo
DCWRM^ ^s REQUflum.TSg RELEAW IT B7f DkY4MGN
"mamerhe2hk fl^ sHeaxr^ ^ ssa^^ Ra^ feu B^^ kmf, x€
pOFImI'm men, B'' COUR-r ORDEP, OR FOR RM x^ ^2'sar m& YAn^ aa^Ei^am^ sad nea^ ceE ffie h e9b,
^^^^ -S4siis^aaza3s - ^sHi^z+^e^ asx mti^€ee^H r^ zmcr^^
'^MOMMAIICW OK E7HMCEMENT OF A STA'HUTE
^^C" TO ^^S3^dH^
m WCAS PRMDM B?ti€ D£ M^OK (C) W ThM (A) Tft ma-st h- -f b-sx msvs'ud of x F
^H lH^; ANY H^ °Y^I,T M^9 #H^ 44 H^ ^H^f3^ ^^^ ^ Ea^4^acEex ^a^ mr ^^
£YlSH DEXMWM3kdDmsm ml3lslm(04DF '^H^S^ W) ^ ^ azaast^^'t^^crsshm .a^
€H4D^H d^ gg^ H^3^be9^H^^ 6^^tI ^2 ^^p gg ^ ^I^ Ht^SH^ ax^ssss^
^^ s^m^ 9r^ a^ dixESfasr nF ^^
I'&y sUCR AN DOrmH9AL 3^ NOT A 8"ume REWRD • (C) The biHaHaaep kprWhaah
xb* hom 4 huma Bzws bom
P°CBR "k^ PURPOSES OF ^WX 949.-U OFk^ REVUWD "Kvwd by aHe ft^z fm MwAsH cf st 5m^n amavok ,xz
COM AND NOT gXaw^.'r "Ho mvrx-I€o35F AND dOPY- otba Hwltv cmrs6mcs8 Aa^ dqmtw2sst zpm_^
#^"^`x U^99^^ g^#a^ a^'8..N 9^ 7Fm ^ ^5^. % ^ aT a Hme^ sss^s ^
by ^° s ^cxk^8
W II^ ptnum9.'^., OR AN 9a^.a'M8"T^ a^B. ^BH;S= ^3^5 by dkm ^ asH"^Bdaa^g ^s& a^ ^ Ambe ^
^S
UAL 7D WH+3b^ TM DWQXrM gS REQHgMED W 97DUR"H --shak =xH #y 9^,wam mH.a3'PH omz fl3Evs'wa9 8°odc
OHH;M OR (D)MrzVO-3o, a£ie €e mkgfia iftgL ar P9u^ ^ p*,tid
.3^^Y.^3I'^HA^ .#E ^.,^^"z'^.&^OH^ ^2 ^^.'^ I^^3fl€^a ^^ nH^nB 5$ ^x ^nasen s.^ a ^^e^aon, ss
ar zsg ^He
3"^^ ^naa^ ^s4Y ^2e ^
"HHc^ ^Hy^ ^H D^&^ S,d^.^k) OF '$M .h^.He^ ie^^+P,
^^s^ A^F ANY h^3^H^i
OR .YHH^38^
cXAI
MOcEMmG fa^r A HOME TMT REAMNIFi.- VV*--d as9 -AenWPW qm &mzsh hm=a, hisA anm7
kLy WHa.+MM
TEND TO FD^.`^^Y AN HM%YMUAL z&g=w ftara--5 -d
-r;
3k^ DMMN 'flF Tum 7he ho- dam nxnY -awssm gw w2tak•
7M D^EMR, Ad°aEFa°CY. M MnWt5AH< SN06.6L D,HS- 0$ FzM&S ke 'fh e vfzgmmam ®f xz4vyt
senerw vmccdasmr,
^ 'IH^k.'a" HH^F'^'9HH^H^aJk°
° B ^ Nt;9^.
H^^€9
^`
^^4..^s^
^
Haa^
'^ D^^^$^'t^y
'°.^'^ ff^^. .^'^FH2^'^e3'^, MW,^„ ^S^' $3^' 1Bm^ ^ dS ag^zBi^ 3xe9^^;
MSCLM
_ LWORNATlON 'Hi,.'H" DMIK-a'# H)BMFIES
(4) A dSSa-1 kb-amy +ss st iR xxes @2x she ftpwvisnom oE'm
OF FHM ^ ^t^M ^ ^S%^+i^ ^^,^^^, ^ (c) a^e^ H^^ ^Z zs z. #i^ plm^sxm eae ^ ^q^
,
73f'&' ^ 7^ k"^^ IM WMMUdL 33 TO Hul (5) ^^S6 kr msd*" emxreibaims anwHrs oxpn xxzranias*Ti.tqf3i5
8➢
(D) NO PFMDF7 SMUlB L KNOW3&qGLY H8WISM A OsaVRY^S Pedq3q}}SEd 0* bY EDes-M {2=md w P-ad16^t,° HfefHicimP,,
oar dh=6-qry nla dhbs s^^
FAL'M COWnA3N"&" eRDWr A HO.T^ WITH THE Dfl=_
(10)Tbc bmm 93^ZS x+a zacpg asr ftw awHxn;emr, cempg appm
^^^.^ ^d(`rl,^`^^Z (^.R,^£k^'Tfli^ "f^k.'tY^k^ ®F" ^ wa^fl3^a rxr.em as6` x p^'ic^a m3 ^bns
suk^, ffi^s^xsss^}
t• : ^ £ ^ THE COMPLggF$ $9 MADE dz-vdmg ch'sWems &W ^ ^^d iasress^ en^nttjax^t atamda
£^'SR ^E1^3^ 8^r ^t,'n ^^ 4srezm9 Aai ^^$aa?^ #^ass^s s^
^7T- ho- s's zn -Uvs`at= wiRh med'oeu 3na a;
AM 3721.^ ^^ ^^ "p-,
WIM aedismicw kwsm s 3ar^^ ft hmaeac skaxHH "ama= m
appscut; sha bn am aw;dtee at ffie mpraB a ibe
^z ^h srH'Bzs" m^f a ^ ^H ^ ^^rP^
k^s ^^^ra8 mc^ b^ad^ 8as; 93^ ^^- 4tx^ a^^se^ whas aa ^E^a^ ^^^cEsg ^
a^
a^+^
vra4^
°^pee^
H
F.9,
^'8^
^ ^^ ^ ^ az^ ^ra^e ^e
•
_
-
5-1.{^19
H 822 § I
.^^^ Session T-a^^ ^^l Tmt
m1.^ 1q=c#&ac radnm mat 4smomen g^^ ^^
W '^"£#^ n4^^ M5317F4^ "^E ^a, ^,4`T1
M P'^8^3 83w k S^F3^ ^3'9,^I^F ^ ^S'^-.
^ ftl^ ^ aZM S^.^IIB^k^, "^Y„ AND Fb2^ ^Y
'^'k43^1 ft&Xa) OF ^ ^tL°[I^P^ 'I^H.^,,^''^'8.^, ^.^35'^B^d^7ro
€°a
,^ ^' 3^,^^x"^^'" A14e^ T^4R++E^ ^G^ OF ^i.gff)8 t ^ IlIl`^G
bJ^ TO THE .^'9^^,.'g'^s^.'S ?^.^"^M"^3tiT^e.s363T^
^'MCA,£ g3R 8^^"k^i.TE7Ig^g HARM TO ONE 9^;
HA,^ ^ ^°.^.'^^.^.'^ ^^^a, "3°o ^aW^
"^.+^R. ^3^, d^^IYCX' ^d
MORE ^6^d^.^i2d^ O^,4e HO^i&E
IA^P^,°^°g£^PZ. 9^ '^ ^3.^fl2U:
^ TM ^C.'"YMUN&S ON THE RA,."^ OF `X"^m uorwnoN
^ ^ ^ cmon ^ MAY ^n^ra 2^ sa^aen2
THAT TM CO^MOM gA^ NOT ^i?+3 €^^t M
^ ross ^ a^
AND A REAL AND ^'^ DAN^Ep, ^^ HE MA'9'
^ fa^ cs^raei^ a ^zxusg ^ " °
md"C£3om Fw^ER DbVISY4DN ccb OF •Ems'sEd"nom.FOR
DO'^NCn°e°ERELMF:
• (fXQA COURT "RRAT. ^'
UN-DER Da"^SfeJN (Q OFsRA.NTS 3MUNCrIVERMW
2'^
^
sxssrrg
THIS SbiCMO3d MA'Y ALSO
^av^^ss^i^as2fans. ^a ^ s"^s^'^e as'^^F nn^r, a
Ja"(EM"3` A MMMk., M1SM
Wno^ S€3WECT To DM_
3^ r^ ^ aaa k^ p^^ ^e arop^ga^ ^^us
^tsccE a
&a^^ '^ COURT ^^,.^, ^^r•,^ I^pY4^^^aICdTO^S
AM. ALrM£3Rn'1" ovat THE a'i'3.AE AIM "^WGM OF
TO
s^P,^ ^ R^33^3P^'^ ^ e^wMPB^"^"
AE'.@'OANTAUW AS TIM COURT CONSHE",s.^,^ 3+YECESSAR•Y
^e^ £3kE2x7 €4^ OF A ^.'£3P.E ^3"fi^i^^' A ^c ,'s
S4 RIECT TO ^NMON M OF ^^ sBcrjukg, "Im &q° ^ ^X°ARb» ff^
RRY OF A SPECXAL MASTER PITiC'b AW Co^ ^^RM
'^W^9^ `^i^ HOME ^M ''8AL ^^S^bx
^^a^m
By A MM£F$, ^..'4"^'R S.$ULL BE I'.^F OBUGAD43N -OF
`TMHONE
(C) Ui+E^ THE D^`d9R'^8•£ OF ^^JY^fi ^ E' ^TdE€,^
OR ^AR°kI3^Eis ,^.Sa`^'ltib^' W'k'dab6'^iY ^pt^ k'7[' ^.# ^.r
fZ) NO W'F^ MAS'fEs^ KRAff L ^M MFO ANY
^f ki^.'P^ 311 1 .5H'^ THE ^'rfS s"W c4).^ TO
e^^Eif,A^.` A
EMPL€3YU04T ODllRACr ON ^EFAXF OF A riOW Ok
^'9&REb^^.°^` ^'.rb.G^ ^b^1 SF'sM IFhTRbTd'S ^^f€ ^
P^Rr-HASE WnE TM H4AAM'S F9.'NffbS ANY CAP,fi"8'A1,
3^ ; IN '^E '^^b f OF "^&M ED^BP^ T^".^^i OF'..^,'['&$,
CvGDDS TOTALI1k9G $d#O:8@ETHAN 'A"M THOUSAND 9^^
R^ AND ^°^^d%bDe^d'^ '^k MM ^h.^ e,.^ H43^,'b^
^-% UN^^ ^^ SPECL&L MASM£ HRS 4?N'H",^INkM
D3:.^^. MAY ^' 4^
^^' THE COURT t^ COMMON
AFMS?'fP$.$ FOP, TFO comIx4CI OR 9'URCH,gSE!FRdDM
^'^.^.d^ OF THE COUNTY IN '^e°^RH^ '^E fle8^^ ^
TIM N®." i £^PMATOR OR m-m Ci383RT
L,a^.g'^S FOR S'14^ .o-°1^9I+CLT4fE ^6^ AS YS ^^
(G) IF rAE DIRECIDRTA^ ACnON UNDMt Y.3M=
SA.^SC TO ^53:^ •^'%M HO^
'iR^Y,^^ ONE €^^. MORE
s'CN {Q, MI OR (n OF "flR.^^ SWni$^ I^ MAY ALSO
^a^ R g'S TO 9^'6b^ HOMES ^B^d. 93^R. +^^^kZ.g
AP^ £^ THE 9^&3'e^^ GrPXALTH
e^^ CARE °a'k7"^'3I^^ ax ^'&^R.^E ^'Yo^i^9;^a'^ THE
m CONIE'PUcr
C83^ VTE MOMi[yRMG OF nm %iSDmp"POIN`g•'&^.
REAL AND '^ ^9Pd.^' ^3f^8^„ HAVE
`^3T OF MC9NrMRS IS NOT SUBJEcr '&"£g
THE St3^'ba
'°"f2Y^&OP^7 TO Gak'^° SUCH s'1+^J^^'^rE
AVITIA., UMER CHA.l"'rER 119, DR. MY OTM SBM-foN
^•^'fl^.^, ^'Oif3^'0 THAT xCS
^c a^ ffc ^aR ^ad #es`a'8
OF "dM REMMODDE M EMKCYM OF AHq3.ta%E FE3R
^^m"l
^"`b_
-
` €3^^I) I^' '%^ ^ e^ 'k^e$."fl` ^d^.^.
^M5+ ^.+P^' ^Ta^^.."^K AT A Htl+^ e3^'S ^^
NOT TO IMMEb3I,P^'H'^„'' S^E^, k'NJB^} "kr°dE ^^
^8Ek b^b'`"^^Y (C) OF °^E^ ^^.'AO, ^ MAY ^°x^
"fl s^ ?^41^k^ TO THE ^^ THE N^'€4 E ^Y,^,
w'^ 1.. OF "^^M F:D^Ba ^kG:
(a^)7'Pr^^ 2a°l3T£t^ Z^7E^E ^1dLBM^}^ G^^'bN£^ ^'^ CO
^ R^
Q ^.fq^^€^
,. AND %^P ^5^
y
•-/^/_y ;
€b4 THE ^ HOME "k^Ap
.S THE DIRECTOR D^"^R,^^+T^F^ ^ ME MUST TAKE ^P ^8'L.3^^+1b3 TO ^
€^ 3' "I7 E ^td4.'!^
E ^ 4ryA^^Tr^'
£^^ [THE
yy^ .^
^^ +^
q.^^y^y^
^p3^Rqp^'^
T^^s^
y^.Y
y•^^B
+
ST
c^Td^l,adWLiOdS'ACXy,yy' ^
^ UNDER 6f656n"i9.^LYMq
$^'WL" A4L'Lf➢
^.`a' ^78^ ,e^' HE
y ^`s^^.^y ^"^6.^" REAL AdT^ Pd^aab$"
'„
DANGER ^^S ^ 4y ^k ^ S^E^^ALO:.
^y^y ^ (y,x y^ TpY
"$^^.^M ^'^^^ F°eR£' ^' gA^D'HS$^t%o&m ^
^,`^6S ^^'£^, '^ kP^^.' 9"^' ^ff M^ THE ^3k^39
^^Z,^ ^a^d^ ^ TO THE ^L AND PRESMT D^G^ }FA^
ffi^ Stb^a Ak^"^.^ ^t` C^5.^^"^"Dy THE DIRECTOR
SHALL CONDUCT AN ^SPE^ION TO D^RMg^
^&ER ^. AND ^'bkF.SE^dT ^."aA^1E^. ^ s. 8^' ^
D^^^EpR F3E9.`,^C.^y^ OP8'fl^m ^S OF THE b^ZS^,;.Tb6^N '^"#319.°^"^Aa, F+.^ .k°^c..'^MYT' 3i's.Pe^^^'
a^. ^, ^
MAY P^6^"£fl7P^ g3^E8^^. ^FM^t^' (C) OF '^^.'^ ^'d^7^}'
^. 2^t^d'^'."^TE ^6^
^^^ X4^'^
i ^Fbl^^^^ A^^a HOME `^^.7"
'^L.^,
^ ^,.'e^ '€^ REAL .^FI^ ^'Ht^'^d"fi Ddo^dO^ ^^
^P^` C431^^-
^ ^^ ^^^.^° ^^^. Tim w^^^^^
V`^' t^, 4^F "^"^ ^aF.^a^'^3Ge
€43 `^9.^ NATURE OF 'F&M ^M^33^.S GIVING RISE TO
'^ HS^R^e^3^"% JBSR+&^d-^',
$^4 ^,^ M^^P^ a"RA^°T '&'&H^, DH^:^'^^ .^aE",6:^,^^^T^ R^E ^`^` ^;4^ TO kR^Y^7D TO 7`^^E
($e ^^^e'E„ WHICH TM^fli,4a^ ^., ^ NO ^ THAN ^i
D^K
d^^k FDF^&d3k^
^^ ^9
3
WMCI€' M£bN'^^W5 ARE APP42Ifi9TFD„ 1`fo 3AERS034
EWWYED •BYTHE bl43bm wmm 7`Hp- FRM4DUa "Aw83
YEtM AND NO FERMN WHO 'CuAREWMY &m A M3^
SULMNO CWMAC€° W'ITH. TEE
D&PARTM]NT C9R. A
How'saa8^,'c. BE e4cPP(2MTM UNDER 'n3^'r
Db°dig€4DN,
E'^^&^.'Y M73Ms
"O$ S°sM.L FiA'IE €`^ PRCl^^moNAfi.,
QUALMCA'DOM NECES&ARY TO MOWM^ ^^^
TioN g3F THE ampI1#ays THAT ^'xFE MSE'M M IN
'^^
,^,^-^p Y^3p^
^y^y^^''^'9,^^^W'^
S fly3q
^^9^
^
a^p6ya8E^
^q"
^y^
`9 ^Yt.^Y^I'q^y,y.^O
y ^^q^M
r,^n M TO
^^^.,,
y p^^p^
AND ,{f4JY+e^➢Yd'iSl .O,e4'LLS•RL.ybik'tr ^.sdT6s bV^sgy
^ y. 6K M^N.%5..95 5
^q^"^
be^ "^^y yAT A
:^
e[y^'^-y`/ p
g^p ^
^ e
T
B^4I'y £^yn. i°yr^
^,gg8ytp^
^4.y!^
^y
SHALL ^+f€^`^"
1C..L^wbJC^:iS/
^2..,.t4ll
ONE v FOR
1('^y/S^fu
9•^2•6 d.^]ddFr.'^{q p IxX OR MAC,
"FEOT€'IHERJEOF.
M ON i=MRI£'°sT$e!'&" THE REAL OW PRESENT DAN-.
GER FOR WFFlM "Q6a'NC'n'fP^ ^MF WAS.GRANgIM
U-°+PDIId. iMSM (C) OF TMS SECEoN
k6".^.s mxN Eimi.i TATM AND I^.'^THE IiOMES x3f'ERAToFE, uAs 3^EMONLL
SMA3ED""M CAPACITP' TO`k'RE'o-'EN& TM ML AND
PRESM'$' DANGER FROM RFCURRPM.^à
'^BE COURT
SHALL ^P7,^r,•YE ^ ^^9^^D^9 ^2^.^Y
7M HOME
AND
^ ^ ^ ^^^@„ A^`^kb^ oF "^"3'
DANGER CANNOT ^E ELIMINATED Pd€ACr€C"P,Y
Vtlr}UN A R.^'.^iSONk.^LE TXB,M EOLLCwMG AP3'OINT_
MMb ^ A SPECIAL MASTXR„" ZM COURT MAY ORDER
'Y&3^ ^BCIAL^nMTS? aDSETHEHOMEANDA'#MS-.
FM ALL .RES3DEYdTS TO OTM ^oj^,M 4DR o-MER
A9°MOPRIit^ ^ MM-MC,'IL
00 THE DDtWMP. OF EEd4LfR W9M.L OM NOnCE
UNDER DIVMGM' (B) AND m OF THIS ^^x To
Bx3'M OF '^E FOLLOWING.
(J) 'ZZ€E HOMES dsb5MINISTRA iOP;
(2) IF THE H^'3^ 0 OVERATM NY AN ORdsANIZAMON
IY^W IN SUB.SE°&€ON 5631(cn A^ ^^ ^T
UNDER SUBSELITON 301(a) OF TiM " INTERntal.sEvEmFF
CODE^y-^€qh^p ' fl^
99y^6,.< 4y^0^y0pyS,(`y^^
`.^,•y^'^. p y2^08,^r 26ry yi^ 8q
.^y^C.^
. g^I1^,..y.^ ^&!e,
^ . AS
^e
AE LSd3RA1c^K0'y
66'!JC BOARD ',Fb- Sa'we^'^
6/fA- X^XSTa
^ VLAR39ki'N"
9
ZAIdON° £39, ^" "^'E€E ^'9Rr^E IS NOT ^3^i^s@'^£3 bey SUCH
AN ^t^Immiz4.`m3l, `LM OWNM OF THE ^QMF_
NOMCM WAff.L AIE DEUVEM BY MT*'nD MAIL
OR HAND DM'4ERY, IF NOnCrS ARE HbAII^EVs T7$EY
SF$eM HE ADDR.ESSED TO T&^^ ^ ^^FaM M
DrM9OM 0XI) AND M OF °fMS MM4JN„ AS INDI^.^s."ff`ED
IlN °IM Dp^
p°^.^y^• ^
^ OF e^p^."p Z^qM ^.^.^^. #F 's'^
ARE b^fa.^dl..➢ ^3^,^%i.La^y ^'$Y^" SHALL BE ^UMMM TO
^ bge z9^+cz
^.^^^. 9-05
,._..___._..._.. _..._........_. _..._........_..__.._.._____ ....................-_._.._. .._ ..__._._:.
^
5W102R^
^922 § I
1990 Session Law-,---^Fuff Tmt
MM^^ WHO WOLMD REASDN"9.Y APPEAR TO TkE
AaERAGE k'ddUDENT PERSM TO HR.VE Aiii ^^^RTS,°Y TO
ACC"T THE16C
I 372L^^ Daidd^ ^ ^zx.;_W,
ot A, mwd aes gmfim 372a.#33a 3728,.k1% of a8ac dd"nw^¢€ CcxY=(A) Rame a- AU OF TM FO3.JA7W¢NG^
W A IagRm as sae=®d s`rz s=kacm 372a.63a of sAae Rg:ai=d ^^
VSWA
a) ANI tafiss"ft ^ a fi=^
,ktp sra c9efimed m a heaagp
Zode« a,&& MOsvae 3711Aff OF Ta^ ^lg-M €.ODE ft'hxu .zx
9^^^M AS A
^ ^URSMG FAMIY ^^E^ aa^^^Ji aa^
C3) A cmtsay €woe esff d'zserick Mud opmzhA ;sssmwaart 4o 8 ^avsm cram pxviued cb,ae_
"AdmWgrMear'° vqi^ MR&M ALL OF 'n3E FOL{,OW-
g^} ^^ ^ ^ae^vam ^ ^a^^ fr^sevi^m aa^^asm^F^ue^s^ ^Z^
a€sadesf.a. "9'^e VkrxssCV eom3Miafga ANA bg: rMaetriSZd of E€e^
L-es stPHand -Zii^ I^vwuuxn^ r,r Q03ido =vt=WM iv a
sdiz a uycs& aa, '' d= ow gaff zazyrabgr w craay twae Twdass3s,
vOnsw%v " S➢i"8''t ffvfiCWsft6'4'...
p FigKnidb TO EAM RMMuT'r AND %^^^^ nMg "a'^? O^. AT ^'a^ 'f&^u2E'^3F ^9.^=€3^'^Y, e^^8 TO ^14.^:a^
M04ghR OF •k•aM ffaOavaE S STAFIFx at kaA O;o OF E4Ci OF
-s^ ^^^^W P. ,rM al dz-a zsg^ e^S^sEn^ av^axr &=4aM3721..£0to
3721_17 of Ih* Reviwd Q^ft
0) A WXn"Ma EXPATION f3F"MF aRGVLqONS f3F
^^) A COa'Y• d2F atsc haa^ s^ poWrs ussd pnacrs&ae& sk^eaaEs&?ac#
usss9ez teg
(oa) A ^B 0^ 0k kmep m1^
4e) A C53^° OF the ai^ ^^8deph+zw uemabm of dw
bmrsa cd•' Iea3h eO d'a b.za€tHn sasdAd o£• ffic ammiy i43 wbk& the
hao ¢e as kCzead" 3Jtr CDb.N"£'P!' saepadaaazset ca' 3emman zrrim of
the mmaKy nm ehach &e imene nx a^Eea^ kb& GW,& a a'AG.^ dcgoFk-
w-as ca-hm^& and amm av"=$6 thc "t awa €M€ ar^ a
03C dcpRdmct8 4 ar^s^ ^aar^ abeag OBsses AZIsnng kmeg^ gmbadsaaesm
qz^^
^k^zza ^ ^ ^ ^s^ea^ P^xroa„^^ ^aa^ae5aas s^ sax^'4^xc9 eaa
kd^9^a^F^a^',^^
C-U.nT =-reoes mw4 4#m adwh&Uaaoa• or tt^
^a 3a Oaky, ami4vk*
(3) wrm mx^.a^x ommty N^X= cx digsia be= W*wo' tht
206,xaw 5meecr CanpBer 51-55_ sd thc Rmrsxcd
6£^} ^my ^°° ^^ ^nz Ad;xh rdm¢aw, himd" or var&xi a# a
• SS^Ad4^ R4!^{78 ^'d 533 3S3'f^LC^ S8^ =qQzzITft CtlG.tbr. X4:F.tdMlI73 WVd-.
Ewr-
°°xMW=& doEs ZdvM3fie° M"ss
snr 9oc9Z*vna=
• . mmt ffe£iRg' 8#szt. to3 2 =p=&ft mwmft aes"s M-Vd 4VA
$an^ 8cidmA vAt^ Bk dqmgtmcw arbaE@H mdfg di'FIAW (B) i5r
^^ ^^#1°0s a #to Xcvi=a^zro^
As amptam"Im ag mm-$aB^'m of-Y vtaaaft aaaW199 awpoatzxcrs w umaa6m dL^a q"ftm faZr bA-==0 aB2Bus mndff
Wction .^^^^ a the -a^^ ^w Cadc a-aV-4 aM,°°,"A
26 i3Itc-A,. 1, n zaamdgc9, ma " aeu argigood
dhaa&3h nDdffd'nyassm (a) usfw2am 3709.07
of sj= Rrnwo CO& md'wim pa astdsRsae gdpm9aeeg aund
cm=di x^K sg^ swideeft aee mo£?rnn pw@s%ems m9
^ssBa VMDCKuME tbr^ ^ ^ bm-atm^ amd wasus^s ibam
s^a r^ax^ xe300.4eX saVaces Jso rseed £hen^l nt*ft
A aaeanfler ufE9* sma;t4 ascmBr6y.
} r; ^"^^aa^nmB`°e^ez^,^rses^^aa^uxe^90nzny mrdds;
zr PMW 84A1t izitftfavs weaffi Eak £= mnscvmot Gf E#a,e
Jro =am *Lvlyy, z geav;at& emaa; cer
a lceftd ca= d,.^aarc
B-^^^6'a "^'M "Mft^;°Ai'B^ Fb^°a'a'n4^. ^^ a^'& ^^
° •' 07CE THMUJWMC OLASe
"'' 4M" 2&MAW 2&-2*0 ^'3at
AS,'IEn 'flM FUNCM$dM OF &c 4m^s^ Ia^Y }f,. ^
3^d •£^3^E.'a` I^M€'^ a^a'^'^^6r.^, aT^b ^£°4^^ ^3^
E`^_ •^"€63^Y^"ga^^^93ES^K'^^.^^^^gb^dk^e^•
ATYl9aN HE ffIIG9iM MA^,"nrA^^ ^HYSb£'M, MENTAL
'Asommrr ae"iie m
'{ut ig am Pamited Hoy pWktay.,
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^iaw M-m
SPEEM TafEaaAPY, md pppIz9r*W mA sod39 =rasm
3721,I2 D*d" of *dmkr"stss'for of a bmw+e [Eff.
_ y,+-zp ^ ^FfFPR83^'^843E' 4'1^8 ^^ ^
(1) `^ft t6, adsrsca a^ s^iBS 6^^ ^ e e bmt^t, a^if
'Q ^4 ^is ^aao^ Fx^n^ ^ #^ a^t^aa^, beXt£&xs g^si^s ^^ ^s^
+ ^#^^T^^ ^ ° ' Sriz^d^a4^° x^s9s5 t^ra• s^tt^aes
"21,17 as{ ^ xcp6oi cr&' ibz rCabcusWbEhe= asf
L^SA^^89$^ ^ k^$ y8^g^^0+o^^
gi #^ ^56fGtla^°$ ^i'f^4^3B6^ ^
^'B^1V.'^"^..^kE^L'GtlSYRf3xVd859fi'
P^7f^^$A^E^'^^y^°•d`1d94]i^X^f.E& +
pfuvmur^_ .
.6^
W+rnlirsa -laww1oftmeccd ok- the mvz"s}t of axvgs of IL&
maxr^ a%ded Bn tsk soaYdoaa ^amll be acea& pa ce a 4he maad='s
rc=sa wdd the sezffmmwspo=We§ xzwrc9-
(C) T'he sdmiaismaw sflwxn gasd ALL 83F THE F6g 6.igwaPdo
psw,in=dy ^iealin thc Im=
(1) A *Wy oR''Eha rW" af m6dea9s R:, ais¢ea non d'ivisim {Ay of
snudw 3723.I3 of the Revigoo Codq
(2) A c.,sW of xttv baxzWs mks^ axd em paUq*;md psvm,.IZam
mvsda^ the xio^ ma Kspa=-bMteM of srssdwS^
(3) .'e, xroa= 96sa8 m ravy ofthas; dop2a , exles ofl"am dearkaxar®6
of bmk^'e aWR'
i21baL° d77' 9M %a7.'tlEYy and rbdCBi Sqputium "Ctgl^L."4$.
'r4m XVIB sssdf XLX af "SndW &=fitjr s3&; 49 SBaB_
6215 (1935)„ 42 u_°'r.8 A., 303, ^ ass^rcds^, zad £'daa macc^s`a9s
-Lvd Cn4a, = sT&u*€'s^ imTccbm 'sn the hu= a masA?)Aa(4) A #Ed of sKsadeaw xi^*" xa4rrOms=
(5) W^^ ^^ 13 Ucmam UKDEK s ECTI4AN 3n im
OF "9"M REMM C,Rb^^ A COFY OF 'aqM MOST aZ.ECENT
UCEVWa€E M.WFCMN REMa€T MFP&.RED FOR - TfE
H£B?M UMUE. Ti.'^' MMQ,'4 AND, IF '^ HO6uE LS A
NURM,ki FAcany R o nar7r8£bm ra :s"xIoN snB ^o oF
nE REVMM CODF, A COPY OF TM P#M RW-EN'a'
STATEMENT OF DMCP^MC6Ex assBTm TO "nm li83mm
UNDER ^ ."WN 5111.42 OFTaiE REYMED d:ODE
^53 ^aR^ ^euss^vaaaz ^ x ^^ ^ay^ vwi^ ^aa^ ^e^v^e^ ^£
^d^ ^^^ asr^tarb.&^ ea^z^ akr"s3A^s gara&^u^ u^^ac^
zn 8#se spp9icabft ana s"Zs'onekm aff'aary &&r^ msadean&
2°sphd., br^ytronnd 8#sem aE fac& k set^mo :#721_16Ese3723_f7 c^^c
Raassoa ^k md s.h* mzp=g°68Tgn'a& of n^g^ xuWdxog the
eiew kv&earcs WabiiAed mo%drx L3nix dxv;Wn® sw-be mx3evved,
n^sxR armcxdeMs &wkTgd nysuB 9&end 3.n u bsa d`Zvaiim (A)(1) a
" ftdnssp.
3721o13 ^shts of raldgz w
a9^^ ^^^ ^ ^ ^^^^^
(A) Tfi;c rig,bb of =Wcum of g hm2 ^ka hriedr, £w m nek
rmEfsd ¢o, tl& WoWmF
(1) °%b^z Ask 3,o a, MtLt xz# Ck'asn Nving mv €mmwm8 gmsssa w
•^'°zt= XlT'9ftl xsd m of the °s&jg seesnraky AeB," 49 SLtL 52E3
(193A42 USXA„ 309s zs smeaedad., aznca ^^3^ ^flzt^ 9anv^ ared
a4goEsxn- P---bed
ft mblic h=kh srimak
M T&ae d& TO RIF, FMM MOBva FMaCAI, '4^BAL
14019"M^ AND IWOa'MAa^, ,^USE AND trs 9>e uaxd.a8 a
8ssm -M MuxsLy and, mvpw, aszd fa mwkim srraeen¢y 03d
s"K,eaevr`ssaaede3-'
(3) Ugzagg oaaailssizers. aps3 kgMAxT; the ykbt to acPcEgsnee am
nppDpdnft ureaieAl tvaxismg md eagrraft mm amd 9xe gAber
aiNCffId6Y&.?' orram aho emgas•`sm mtnemmy &od XPPMpvraxto
cm acamnstcaet wkh kk gxmm for w£sdt tbm sndamt =tmdead'
T^ CAR R ' MIALL BE P'R5}'iPME D with apA vqp^d trs axsresi da-z
g9€AftE fffxt EI.6
' mi, S$8kx, 31P.^.9em u4➢ ooa SPff3fm ^..°R &R a9?iJI= of
PW"X=j fGii" SpSiw"
(4) Tke rs& s.se alxwc n}] xmazanaHafle- YMmU %srd z"uucgffiirazs
B•%p=d&d tG} pmmpgr
1990 Senios^ ^ws------FuH Tw
(5).The afigRad to Fsavse da&rz aNxsx8 bed sfim do2sged s.^, Ed^ m^
wir,ry das mmrc E&- zasdcner, easafftt aaa ma dadncm+
gfsp'C^c Rig3ed eo u€SHanmt fiata ft heame, aapaaa mqurs^, the ae^^
acs a -Y V-6a#ty saf ^*Picim ror o28sca pmsea rewsrae#a& for
49s^ ^^s^^ad ^ ^ar^ asr f^ss d^ ^ee^i aff ^ax^
^d3 nr aagK aWM XNUWi Bss b&- Magae--A zcsu&sa ft cvvzdty
of'^ ham w mak ?he auhmwem4" ^ *& ozff phoedar sef the
7z"ma"'S cw?R=e $d ttc 9W nSE *=X33d%= -,Pwi9gi $IR.' Mm 82d
wAaX3ra pdZcs'm =ask w*md=m csFihe dmt, 8az We2 $5 the lmnd88^ AYAWZf9 !A phyd6au whL'0 ]s P8Q$ C3Y dm %bffSAf$hc hm,-- ^thc
msd of a pk%icbm°s sm"saat fg w 8e mcg^ eeete6ff z. Fakra€r mv..
PMEa'd pmgass, the okps"r-nsae sbs#k aaaae^ 6c f'ed&n€ Ysms md mgiy
€a^71Eb99^
m & ^AA0.^. ^t^£ $^d919€X^,.
^ai' Tht
6f'tm'^kGJ+➢h^ ^
j'emd^apATE IN I3EOMONS 'MAT ,^FEC
3 T$^ RF-%DEN'M M7, $NCLUD3NC`r TkE lUGHT so eomxzeeenamft wais
d^^^AND LMN-ay&^OIF TM ffdOWE in ohnakx qbn
u^ir9cxx"s ^xr ^acs^ csrsz^ ^s& Eas s^^m ^^ a^d^ ae^g b^^
dm omowa a*d ==d yn^a cmmm?mg; aae,ea3 scende•€am, vrusmwk, azed li-emmm p#av, s'o waes The xxuWSSd em mg^ ft C"aas€rxb 6m oawrzsed, Elac xrg9e€ *f == w 29€
7T9o%iuSFAm in bsS mbd3c2d mmnt aBA€ A€c EW io zAro'^° TsG' -s'dt'sSdd
mio^ www,^ja for ww^ &= ft ammq®com•aad' tha€
c%micw ha re $mm cmeWfiy cqWssxO- W#agu the mcneffiog pNysgdwx
fSZ& dhmtt n€ r`-s xezeE oeda-e;* mdy"ss^3c do giw Edm 3cedbwwam 2m
am ses3domk Bhg^ aOih^8aw "I &+^ Mada, axas"bble fss ibc N^,
dMfa sPMUM ' the mwmws hedzxx af ^c
3ponmw h= akse e^^ ast ss agwbx'szatT by BSssr- osidext w
amzsn the anforamksma. 'Fdm deasmc oz yycB Fm€ c Em- a sa4z4sm of
dmffi $€8'tl+Br:Q791 Ef £heYtCo^akCiDFC k& faA0.4d to b^ th* ktl`-60a
of 3a aa ar
^ ^ee ^ ^d a^' x ^
^ ^q 3^ x^sss^xs^ avLse as
2^8 t^#EZ-wnw amgzBsx$ 3oam tkz hmeas
`€"#ae ss',g€S° to ^ mm=f for pwsiacn visiwemh zf the
vkysui^ 89€ med VWK tm rmadm^,
^&£€} ^6^ xs^ae 4sa ^e^ss9s^2x-abt s^f g^rseyzc^ ^ m^'s'^d ,
v-=Zd,r,, and ago ragk w zvvc^ mr afum ac wHwm s+&' €Fm
mm sse aua3 i"vknnsd ^ide 3he hmrz, sea sam of uaa sf'wdea mrb83ctza- home, boqAal, aas hmkAa u3n, a;pamm, as nMtrsra by.
k+^ or na€,, or n xotl+xdmd by n t4kd-puty paymraxcE miura&,
(11) °Fte 40e to pavaa.y dodft mc€scR naziaati¢ asc emEas= anf en the mm aQ'pumnap oe bDeEr'By necft
Vq Tft EiA& fas sxf}sag wsamn2 jaupacarwcpg a^ Bsp vppaprnsds' aeaedaea€ xarr, 3x6 mm a m ma.edaQg smmarek sssbjecr
(13) °9"Etr axg,ht to Le a= fim grby^Re^ or zhoCSnm$ maxacaats or
pmlosigod $fCaa3,b1.14x P7Gmpt fE8 ft 7pAWmiCH3 carad n=mMay iCO
pn*ml '3he S'E$5dm76$ ^'FG7£1R Cm}Y" to bb55radff fYt€E2As, 411P
p ^,,^
PS,^,C ^ G'^^'
aad ^"
^F a^ aa^ebrsxrd ao ^VXaB^G, ^ fB^. af8a^ezh^ ^r
mX°'cim &.r a
vceffizd =Q pm'tlCJd 5f tha&` aw dGlGmm$t*d dN6 ft E'Y,wrG^
dmes mxs6ncO szmnt FBeos 8es mmh^ the ntpz aad"a physrca or
dmmcd n-A38mt omr ZW %as dese&, Bbt um^ rbyamtn si9a
Z^^ a P=wm9 cumawEvtz of 3ho- xrestdm$ a-dd RM smrEivndc 6=4
®ecize4mx6mm o€"ibe mol to m the rraaoin8 m ft€ zrscdeRaL
PbynzA ees.dm=k29 sgssuaiud.s or k3k6ae oxy €sz nw s'3a;m
^eaa aV--p &itssmcm ursqRfisssst s,aaaboaszaeias of8tc mamdbm qkne0eeHgr' to ast042a &r m4deox f^ ^ury to &aw.vd£' or ^
artm phy4w or chasmw imtmiaas or asm€a,giea shaE9 zd -hc
a9pw^srngd ffir xnerz dm 8wdft hmnn a&r ft mzxmtof %e m=PaCY nv58bwa PmsdtA mmozmdsm sme8 mhoaimdtm by me
anmvlimdd g^ygk-^m rqt ^cb"rog OT*4Sa arc ;a Awpba#ras^s^%
aese^ ^eag #su^a^rz sxsssSax3^ xss^ af ^ sy^-s^aea3 a^a¢^^ ^^
€7,uiGtd 8e88$ $O fL7GMtd 8;33AY+^"s, md 3€ tfic c'SCE 65f w36 PeaEod M49
^ -bzmpead 9aaxW -V CNWA €dac mxhov^radwu fgr ^ adu#f,
Kkal3c2a RBfIdiS3$3 gaLi SH89$ hC.` c6lifirm38fd -wiAot a d7crsm2% mpur,
aso8^
3sm^„,
d° z^as#san8 xmd dw warcasxa ^e^Es'^r >^'^m zEam®e^9^
^^`.f°°°,5^cim 0-Air4 &* gY^ fm cygbBYSSXft the llesmahaL
^ ^^e^€ a3^ ^^adc^ q^taa^ds ^ v^ +a^sEee E3ne^ ^Sz^s^
t&x Wie- •s&ftE£ mcram flda BFw rcrfs^ saido-A sm-esvrs ^PmPet
did. P,u m svmt shYE gr4sy3i^ *r &cmixafl rcomeea?s m ilgwatian bc •
Mod ffiss pwsi&brm=a„ 60ess€iae, or asmsmkbm
(14) Thz 6sk to the phseesmcsa a4 ft mih:aCs ehazm sma3 xhs
lr^d W awcavc p€euzrf,somkmd nvvgs'res aaed =aam 2a acamwbae
kar- roa7t --dia, nvkzw -R -mattjr sozepdz^ mice; for
^ ^* rxkwd ^de^," ^za^ st^ ^eraeew^ a^E€eeaa
$253' 1ft Niga8 8sa sscaenc'&H d+n9 rsjbds, onlav's the m'admB, b^tcs
bma adjudicotad s`.awmugag:t=d punsemt. to chads3er 2€1€. a€ dEe
RCVigW CDft assd flsaa asess &soM mcoasd d* Aa*d sagveity, n ror^ as
lhs akk to the awpexmfasm of 8hd^ h nuees ab3lswncsaz zs maakin$
wrAasj=Ye=u &r dm excraft <r8-tw angEs€ €ea ro+aw;
5-1021
H 822 § I
(€6) TM MS"H°&• €3F AOCM TO 0P9'GB3b"f,,Nf€'i^.'^ MT
WAM^z THE RWWMT, AT ^ M[PENSE 63R AT
EKPIDM OF A •3.-MK,)-f"ARn !'AYM TO ACBt-W 'fTfM
MS
RW-EST
^ ^MC ^U^€Id^^{^ ^`€^8^
^ d1%^e^^°
^{^C''^^.^
NA, A^kd's HAMM4"fl"bON
^^ ^ Kkot 1;2 ^s^sExaa^ x ^€^ ^u^nmc^d a^ a^x^ecr^
bemagm sti¢ hix orrn zxpzm^- uAm sm4 malaca,^y mAvamsksu:
dmRsosa9ea9 isc ks mmfio€ =aasad by tW s26r.necE* ph*6= Ew
wksx mre8m&c"y to Wred4em acEmiga;aa qneRsck:e;,
fk,4^(18$ TIC azghd €ss we wbam at bxs mvm sxppum +zxccdtv
the
dta.rwx`g m#°z^y asnEeg asR4 rrud= appru-mbic bm aod xrn#*g of 3^e
sS&r,
m9a aRad WgAzmft acE^^,Mbjk as &caw--4zcd a¢ la°ss aazdncz^ m,cm-d
bly *o sEd-dss^ vkmiii-
Emm) "&ht ss'ght
gza^de as.qenctts, drk ^a^c s^sr^ ^i^ear#p rra#^ers ar^ d^^ ^^ ^sa^9
I'm*rs^Zgm afffd eww S&g daa^m e^^u^ x^xsss ^ a s^a^
mca4 ti}mk= imst aeardaasqgc asAvs^ s$ a6anraaxce^ Ee^ 8r^ ^^
^
rm aok to dmre,Xw ;^aus of9Pig^ am paxe^
pac iqg sdwama ae3aroadiw^ the sw dwa Waimea axzvedta.1 geae€
m€tsr,aag idmd°aBy; Md tm r4sd dts mcsi unm aad pAidpRtc y"m
awm3ks ceE'sIDrsaE sttycff sceIDmm%eyd,y grcvmgrs a,E the msiakmt`RF snr d0x
^'^ ^teE^a
TA* xnght ap= mmmc^ad^
csrr,m to pri-mft sM
--nHcadycsena, wid3x dyys &u®ay, leada^ srrredca sad
zmrg ^+kd^g pa^e, awe9e^s aeas^ ^,„ Ady acdxas^d^dc as ^csjar^ue^ zn
isk mmTsA moas6 by qbx ztt"B&n pdaya,^ owerpt ftk cm=skmaaduoseswidh PvMac officisds cw weeh ki% Mmycy gc pWezz sba l€
strari Es-- mErss9as9., MyraV- axnd nassspxvded ss^mmaWmfisxis Kbm9B
^e$esa€ss bu€ m ND8•€`rma8m ?sa, sk asa5k $o:
tv^rot^
amd MR srBkd^ mopmm
Rcismaas'^e z=m to a Wq*sm fm pis*z.gr €zxamuoaiq-
Pri-10 Vift ad -7 xr.aR^omaWa dAa:
^X22) °€'€ac r4€a€ ko -ssyod wamcy fw vsw%ft by da gromr, m
ud botk = midtrssis of ft wmc hme, e'Da raght to sum a mm
wit€eua ffic capbay a €€g homr, %1^ nmd awAc-qh ahiobk xar
40PUMAA4 AAB ME ffi&df7g 1*9^ol€6yFM Zdk9eF98€eKg oqfok^
ORM The Y8Ot iSPI',7W ms=Rb%c mqgeiA to hX'!' d'om dom
rclUSesfl mQd la d*'8e 9hm #a asg€s3w wxdhm Hnss ddm eReegid n"se
dc a20 eLGAIC3If."CECy EY2` llR33EM $Cad wodErngty ad}".Lwl€g. 2s ^®4CH8k-a g63his ylwd3M mord by dir,
° werAYSSg phytic^- •
(&Wd) The 9W W re2ain m€ m pr,csmg e3kChnyng xrsd &
rmmmbk sxaamaaR of pmt*avm, iv arcmmww apxsSE s%asGAf`xq
EkWm €f8 do 9L0 10.wAd ;Yfifffigg m ft Aghts a o:ACY mtldriA45f 888
'BXN83m ➢➢4)d bJ,9 AM,'dkBw adt➢ &*6" *R^
41E his $a8d3Y'td
xrx=d by the 54tcs^zrsg physidw,
(2-4m Thc rkb€ tca be fi3d^^ pd" £eb ur*1 klm dxkm of
sdwioAm ageas€ &Wss bas s3my, aaa wliesz& ref8#cl buic rdz amod
€aY 6€a hmrut^, of Wve=avZ&Wz s'm gm hcuase, and rs€ avy sdd-;tionz9 chesgm adA8atd w sug;b smvices^ axedvde^ cbwgz for P-rY^= amd carrsxad nxatBe^,x °€ 1£€aa )=€ aaa# 7f3.Xzzf8l.ha "SardaY Sw,->r-- a- ^•vr,^w0tea$tw...8,^..ks^e• •naes ^^ The
ity AOwi^9_x^_
badc ra,e Aba RRz4 be ckmuvA uskn ffiidy ciws PNL^x is vrfts w
9Fseat6duat sx; i^ ¢^ ^e^s^^md Es^ ee^s9^ Aaa sa^da^€ p&is a^a
llw ffhe4, ss£3.9z rxaidm wnxd }rx-m payssyz d'c+a-zfic sar^
to =awas c anda Eos3R at Iaals€ mmt6b ^'arc; gic ie,.adtma"5€ aRm
tn3E A'ag h^ tha€ ASft.AAAAXC5 dmat3 ^ hc6dw,gn &hn b2dig mteg
(m) The rs"^'st "& ^y Dd~ ^.^' i^kQ^^ff YIYx^.^.€ B^,"d.+E€..
^W€TAMO9^;
(€n) 'ff'HE Mf°H€' ice f'7^xaYSew 9faeaM +re;
F ^ W ^8F3^
^°6'^3 d£^zs ras^sd'^3n^
M WRMM TOb.
TRE ۥHG^MF, to
s^e^ s^aa^ ^s'9^ az^sk a€ d^.54 a xpssae9rz^% a^aetFyr^^ ^}z^
IffSxXQ S9^ fitl53trnC9w TL'A^R+X771 MRR& m 1^k be{iRD3T T€ag gadP'd53i`•tt$
A coW€Eds aecoM od";REd fmft paxyanaaxl pmTakyp m pw..
se6cana Ora m4dr,ne€ fzm any susaon. zibaftwsca; 2hm 9M-ft bem
^idee8 l`^a ^ie^ ^ the bomt €^r ass^ dDy d#^ xeaa^ zt ar
nomor,
Mh) A RWarg of 296 aEeposab az4 waEbdr^w2b €,Famexd,
w^aa^ ^ be ^a^s^3dx3s^9 bp r^3s ^ agam€k be ^evrai^abVs ^aa
issspmim and oupyzn by the xs4dm8 or spmwv,
fz^)m ne zs'AE ad' dke saauc^ica99 to bz^ v€&aazvw sna2sts6dod
amxz& to bis pmpaYy mm depms'& a8 :rzma#3s #mrs< Wca
A€SSvm&ewt^ m43
5-1022
H 822
1990 Session Laws----TO Tekt
^^
^ ^^ ROOM ^^^^^^^ ^^^^
^NCLM^`s AN EX?LkWA-n63N OF TBE REAWN FO^
^^
(M ^*
pt k- aawne2€ tza^aas ^ete tei^ ^^ axrs^tb^s t^^"^ ^cs^
^ ^ ;^* 'sf ft ^e^°^ B^sssa a^
^^mClIAP
'^ ^R , rk 4he^ c$
^ss^
^e^ P=30&1 'x^
to mc€&£3mmflt3s
TO S^XL92 OR aecdn 5I55.3l uR'flMR.,-rraa^d Qs&,zwpk'Iw aa; ae
sd^ o9 =cA9cg€ awhbm.-^ mdu gcs^8suz §10;^Sj 5111A;l euf
6^e R&w!m4C3Fdanna p bo= wCim ° M77C8PA77tD^
IN •Z"^ )^mmcAZ d&m'A^u: PRozR§m is ftmsox xrx
^^ ^ M ^++6. H3MFMt1^'^ •rasn6='^ "^ ^ ^
f'k^E. ^^AW 451,^-fC'ete_£xa^maro x•eaznr^ war_^
ac^axne^ €m A RaSME ^'Rd3^ ^.'^^^^^td
Tf1 ^ ^^ ^ ^ERMMATED £3p, 83^^^
^^)M^Tbz- rzgw 6o V*im sk-vm^ 0ad mmasusznd d-9&^^ ^d --ictx 4m 3&al &^^S AnA to MP3WZM of 3kz,
depawisawl xtf' ^-kk w ¢an ak= pumm M-8 ma^ W;lh th^
^^^^^^^^^ch^ ^^-ft;nk
Ili& ligh$
m$ k^s s&A0Iza
mmffscr g^f W br xd+m Ec "d 20- a^tnzsa3^ mnt% VA0 sm
^v^ aa^ asc^e^ ze^ a^afaxs^ *VA^xs^^da ofl' amsim &sa^m
reddxagxPRA"m The xs"s#xE to &zv^ my sivxv9"sa zrae cEellw s^ ^ Irzfth
^ arat^ ^ra &^ ^•. gs ^e aa ^a a ^rs^ s`x krsa^ara ta
st4 ae isme ^;has malm a acmmw auz9 m aasaaa^
^- VvAhm twf ke lvim
9cear Agam m* daiffs tk sszsaBex&w atibx oncAs'.s =6ms 3m_10 to
(C) Au9 x1&=pw rorox;va a^ the righb-Horad is cHnvid^ (A) sa8`
^ s^zx^se €r, voa
,< {
: •^ ^
M1.14 AMMona pwWom fii hq"=uam a
^^ ^ ^^^^]
To amicw in " s'm0=mwkm ^t ^ xag^ g^^k imt avwsn
€sr We6m 3729013 of " RzSnd Co&-„ mck bmm^ g&m pmVideK
(A) p4matp^8* ^aff E^deaas S^ a^&arozx^ aia^ r^demd^s
a^c8s e xxdm diqw%jm ^.4.) a wcdm 37ZA3 of'^t Pwvhn4 Code,
^^nz w Avg Em-ited #^ ^--
M Tha mszdewrg €ayeWs anna8 tk st'd€°x nqmasNay nss 8}s^
^&36= *f^*jog
(2) Tk xucK dAava#nra '{o Nwasde a mnskn<whss hAve semi
^x xe*D& Ni9Ss zftnvwm?^ aa,pim
(9) A-amms Rrr as nlae^ s me&€^ mmg^ ^a-ruz^
(Q F-kTZ4 an= maaak e3e hant ^'xtir relisRznft w zmjoy
ese#Jdaam zaxi xftpq Wn3Bsss^ ffig^ mpz&y af the gacmy, r^^esa^ Wi'^
appac^^ kws md sdmr _
9^H ^^ ^^^'{A ^^^R°d}S , ^^F 9&S 53F
xmmEM To BtEET mvAlmy `gdrm FAmum 6D^
DTMM
M Amma ft a2ev £'^E^za^ ^& to x^ e s9^s ^ d^
a^^r^aE^ 9stvt^' wg= ma a== wo6d sssYr,daz v»a4h
aftk6m6 ^ ft piwacy amsidmtm •
(1) Eaaapbym a B#rc OEs ak4mbxecm^ a hcdd3a, obzzt dcAx¢°
a^$ of =m8a8 9tmw Ww dzpwtmm of aa^Aas& 2cuz&OM and
d-1wmmw dk4ffi^ ^ dqmnmmt a asiaL a" Ud4TE
mfepecftes3, raf ha=Ms xzve=, axi4 oDuaRy dqmtzxmft afSannaaax^a
(2) prwpmtam mv*zia md mm rg^v^r^
^-^ •.
$^ A midmex 2pm=s
(4) l@.ommfig° dokf adxozatts;
(5) A, aigddmrg aftmmT,
(6) A ws'tt49ex; pade,o, upzK oc a5hw pezsm +min'naxiing Yas 3a
^d,=eT, wwom unr5epk
^MM b -ift gg docieggam a3^ ^ 9asr^°^ ^ ^sea^ ^^•
E s^
t
a
aani nffa&g
(A) AuB&nouimbna
anz7 fros who- de+
be zn a rrsft and oaam be M&SW to by a Ws"Yam who il m^
waw,104d -W -AT^umx-av wilh 9be-^ gteazeun w iEs xslwiala ^p.
4Mw- The hamlr bpwl an;ayadBeeeeu acr,=M putscsma£ (a divs`s'axara
(A)Wm o9`smtim 3M_0 snfr'tlw kgviwA CDdr-upna ^ho mi..
d-¢ "g tasagrx„ *r dzab tbc 4=tao8 " k e^ vlzw
sE F-' --aft mde- AM szmmzaeymg Alwiv^ sta be yAusss3cd w
ORZ mideoa^^^ gNeapt ^^^^a dmdq, whcn au
--assssn $`-A,e shal be 2e'vexa Kax the d=w^S€x=deaa; adme.s"s#rad^z at +rsla2&
^^ ^^A
3^^^ THE ^H^'
&^"^ ^B^^kN
EXCZZ W FWI'i* DOUAK AND WY €7'E3'M"9fi"EU RESWEX°S FUNM THAT ARE FWrY DOL.Ttn flR LES% M
AN ACODUraT ^VARa.^ ^c>m A"
OF THE ROME"S Ok'lG..k€ATIN^'°a ACMX3N# & IN6 ERES"fl
EARNED ON THE R.F39DEM"S FUNDS SHALL BE
+LREDn'M TO '!€M X" s6£6ENn ACCOUNT. A
k''UNES MA°f AWR FWTY DM-i ABeS OR LM ,0W HAW
NOT HEM DF3°GB^ITED M AN €NTEaZEST-^^^IN€x
ACMUNT ME.'h°BE i7EPOSk'M INA NNXgN€ ERES"£-k3FAR°
^s'"i ACMUN;E` OR ^'. M £:1^,5'`&ll FUNI$
^'gEAC ^^ RMWaM WHOSEPaNANaAI,..p^',^I^,.^ A^F
MMGM BY A HmM MLkm BE MCbWMY N¢^^IE-M
P9YTHE Hi3bM WHW TM TOTAL OF UIE AMgR+Sf OF
FUNDS MTM R^'^DENT°.^ ACfSOWM AN£bIM 8'EnT
CA..^ FUND PLTJS = O'£•ffIER i 3oY €EcoWr ^URcES
R-BA€,.̀ BS TWO HUMRw DoLL,r4.RS I.&^ THAlq THE
MAX91WUM AUd1UNT P&Rkankm A REc3pn2zT €5jF MED€iC,A,L ASSIS9"A'@SCE UflDIM CHAPTEP 59 1t., OF THE
JMVISED f-'4ADf,. THE NM^ SHALL INCLME AN WM-A
NA'£ €ON CW THE PO'9'&XnA,.9FFF4+LT ox THE RmWNi1"S
W01H€Lffy FOR MEDICR-L ASSISTANCE IF M AMdJUN€`
M I= ACCY'3b33-= AND DW PEfl"g'Jf CA,%j FuF+FD, PLUS
THE VFiIUE OF bi'{S Onm mS3NExEmp'2' RESDft3^^
^^S TEE MAS^MUM A,.'n A ^tMpmw cw k^mi-,
CAL A-V'%'^'.fi^NLE MAY RETA9X
' CD$ EACH HOME THAT Mp4XAGES TiE I-INANCUL
A1-7A1RS OF RMWERM ^'r9AJ^L PIFRCH$,.'$E A SURETY
BE3ND OR E^^^IM MOVIDE AMMAM^ ^ nSFACs€3P-y TO 'k"M DhXECMAk OF ^'.#,LUL OR, IN MM CASE
€3F A R{2ME THAT PARMCIP,RTES M °JUE UMD3CAL ASSIS"9'ANa^ ^MRAM M'b`.^UMWD HNDM SECMON 5€ i^.Oi
OF THE nV^A CWF, TO THE E3MEMR OF HUMAN
SM4TaCES , TO ASSURE 'Y`ff^^ ^'.^^3H^.3"IqI OF FbI.L
R^'^,^3^4'gi' k-'4JM)S hMA('rM BYTHE 9i[OME
372€ A ^= d ftw-fi- aea ^x^ ^
S^-^^5^^ . •
EMERGM
r^^^^^P^9.H3'k' ^b••^ ^'Y' ^$ OF "^ ^
'M^ OF HEAL7% d& aUzzirtM&M OF A RO&E shm98 nnesf^
A
THE ^&^Y€°^ ^ ^9"#i^ ^^^t^,^''^ AND
^
M-n^ MIAM Y#E MGV^ED AT $.E"rTMRTY I3AW tN
ADVANCE OF'n-M RROPOSM TRMSEa€.OR DISOL&RC'rF,
UMY-S FnrfUR OF THE VEqIOMRd^à AppLM&.
(z) TM kmoec-s HMTN km BWROVEi> sm-n€:9efMY TO AL1,0w R. mopx ncwFfi5^^TE DLWH^GE
4R '9^SFM TO A 9 ^ SKIY.LED L9:M OF +CAM
OF$ °&°&^ ^^DENr WS R^?__
^%M m TIM fi$9)Rffi LESS
THFik+f THMTI DAYR
IN bE CASli £Bk A k2EME^a DmcRM,^ rH OV^TMON
(AXIX*) O°^ (6) OF Tms SECnOn'+E" °'^ ^''9^a ,C9^sb.^„f.. ^E
^SE^&^b AS MANY DAYS ^ ,++.DTPANCE OF IM TR4?^M TRe§NSM OR £^IXUrf,RGE AS IS 5'RAC%d`.^# E,
$2$ M-M NOna P-MUMM UNDER Da'fMQDN JAXI$ OF
MM SECn ONMALL MCLb YfDE AM OF n9^ MLWW&Ns;
(a) THE senSzcu3F fax the dffiisk04-m^ pp^pogw K=Rfcr or d6dmqp
NOTICE OF THE Xx^°vH7' OF "9M R=KA-;wT F;Ai^ HIS
SPONSDR'M AN IMPARMA,. HEAMr
., AT 8 ^E iMME ON
TM P3kOPOSM TRANWER OR IbIS(MAROF, AND OF THE
MAMWR MWMC&6 AND Ti£E -nME W'3339N WHEM n€^
XMM^T&` OR HM Wd3NMR MAy PEQUM A kfF,@RMG
UN'DEk2.,Dl"EmoN (P OF IR6^ ^cnm.
(c) TM 9^DRM €DF nM ^"s,^„ ^ij'^^ OFMCE OF
'fl £E DwAR'E'MENr OF HEAL°6^^
(a^) ^ Azeh^3^, P,R^^3R^0 ^..''^D, Tff,^gphfig9A3,E NU'MMM
9FA RE#EeENTATM Of THE STAyE LONr-'F;ERM rAgE
O^UMMAN PR£3^`aRA.M ,+4.XDa ^F THE ' rH^ENT OR
IM Session ^%^&-----FulI Text
PA'Tt'gFXS FAS A g4EVELOP#PEN'I'.$L DFSAB$I.TrY OR
gEN'£AL IB,y,IdF-SS, TPdE NAME, sW.DDRESS, AN-D 7'ELEPHONE 1'3UN= OF 'bM OMd7 LEGo-4L MOM SM^PRCF_
^11w4sFEE, a e dLczleup arfiam AMU ^ee desFmwca iun
a3^ r^^sd°s ^ta^c^ a^^E #y t^x Fscs^ 3f ffie^ s^ a s^s^^"^ ^was^
rm
^^ e^e^^g u^ ^ s^s^xx nana^ ^^ m tr^was^ sss di ^
^ &y ^u^¢s"ss^, ^uu xss^sy^c^aa^ .^ansaeg ad ft hc^me„ vz thl^
RremAx ew desefiaa= ss zauaxW b=ttsv 83F AN EMERGENCY
oR ONE OF THE IP4ALLOWlNG kmgm
(1) Ttkt bma^ ^ lk=se 9n bc-,m mb+aafmd nnmdcr oect-ite 340-0
a M cKAnw,-,
`9IM hmrce* 3t; @a^g dmod 3xms; k tu SBMONS 511135
TO SIAIM OR mxaw 515538 orB3ae Rniod C-Vdrc,. (3) 'Ihg^ acxusHmak k a Kee9vivo8 tf awdied m6tzka 93NDat
SECn43N 5 I q 9Ab1 OF ^ PEYLIWM COM mH ffie #:om4es
PART3L #P,^.'^gSi9 IN TM WWxC ALA.'^MT4XCE
YR^"sRAM 9aK boom tM%vizaB"A cst dzni
RMD^'F ^,^ ^ nndw'g"'^ 7bvuIasr
^ . Smss.riky Ack " 49 SM 620 (fl 935)^ 42 U-S d .1f_
301, ss oeacssa AND T£M R4:PMWS M"TXFCtO°1^ON UNDER
TrfLE "M He^ DEN '9 EflMMTW OP, Dmw. ^Mv
W
A ms3zxro 9^^ A kw-ing -am SE^."^"ON
SFLU,L BE SMT EN WRffbPmSa T2 riiE 9.EGAL SER9PYM
€3FF-CE DIF THE 33EPAR@M12
-€ OF :."^ NOT fi.,#TEI
'dffl^.83 tea dap &zr THE fldODWE AND ^
SMNS^^ RE<MVE MMCE of sho gsopxxd w§wo TR,R.NSFER OR WSCH?9RM A bn)ft shES be Md wkbsas #ea ahgs by
am dcvzitnmmg ce5 3s^^h- A ecorazabbm af 3b^ ^1 ftpm
PM4& uaM 8?s^ head^tg lad s'saug m owk2 A FEMMMM.A'n47N widha3a fi-M s#a.y^-n sx 0 amy ad r^rama zs2" 8m 8bs ndauiui^
8eror tt^e rcxadase, md my s"xa4oremd sgmwa. -Tho
IF A RESIFAEN"&° &S 7F,4XSF-EKR&D OR .r^ISCHAAkB°sED
k°MWAWM TMS ^.
"MN, '3HE ROME FROM WMCJff
THE RESIg'sM4T $^ 131EIN£"r TROaNW^MRM OR I3E^^
CHA^^^ MAIL ^YffM I"^ RMMLW WrM AVEQU^&,`^ PRWARR.'n€3N MIOR 'RO UM '#'MMEM OR gDIS^.C`aE "^ ^WRE A SAFE AND ORDSMY TRAhSFM
d?gE. DISCHARGE FAd.£PMTM HGkaIE^ AND '€HE bo= ®r a4ft,
mala^et muimg tre whkh the =adm8 b tse P* Mnr^enmd OR DMOIAR^°'sM arca ham wvp;a4 t6 aesudat Fmx'tem£€r OR SDL15,C^AJKGF- Ae
(D) AN zxutpatW hmxz^ng m muhlent bawfix twr diumdeW 6s
rs^ ,g^= m yesda, 921-n a&,e RzviwA ^
M A'r °#NE TWE OFA TRANWM OR: D^.' e°HAR^E OF A
^MEN"B.' WHO IS A ^^ OF MEDICAL A;aS€S'g',^kTCE UMEX SBMCJ4eY 5111.01 CW TM Rk-VISED CODE
FROM A MUE TO A &bOVTrAL O3g F[DR 'FEMLkMUI'^C
LEAVF, °Tk9^ HO^ SHML ^OME N€MCE M WM^^^
TO THE 'AD;^ AND IN WRYIZ£ids ^ ^ ^ MD MA€I,
REMRy'^ H^t^E
q^
^^^^^
yQ.3'^pq, g-^
^'^pP '£^k^ kk.^.:^RDE7^^y'yLg
^
S^D^3SC.fooq,°^J
a ^a.L^",^2fi THE NV1.i^l]V:^.
qS 3^ A^,
^E DAYS,
MMI+YG WMCH M9.^ MMEfT WU.7, BE ^^WTTED
UNDER THE MFD^CAL ASSWs^.^^CE 3.'RO4°rI2.d4.M TO
RMM+8 AND RESUME A2.MWM'4CE M "k'EE HOME AM
SPECIF'YIN^°x THE MEDICAL AMST14NEM PROGRAM'S
5'^d7VEReR^.^'xE OF TM DAYS DURRqG WHICH THE RESP
DIRIfl" IS ,OkBSENT FROM 3.3E HOW- AN DWrIPI.3URL WHO
IS A^ FROM A ROt6^ FOR M43RE THAN THE'N33MI&ER OF DAYS S&°M(,`MED M '£&M N(MCE AND OUNTLi^' ^ ^^^ ^ ^R^'^ FOR `I^E^ ^.S^'3'
AV^^^ REDIN A Mg-""Alk* ROOX
^^^^^^ ^nce paudwe; g^^ ^ ^w of
by owo w-Rissiam ea^ A&g pmd3.e,, rffi&€
s=taft PM 22-13-^^
(A) ,ffiS,p nsidm aehce 3egeves 8bd bU rhhEs m&a s,^,aiew
3726.10 to 372#.17 cfttm Rcrssed Code Iraaa^ bacu va"DWEicE mxy
kr,^ a zrk-mac eundar pw=debra ZCs&^ 3aaaawm& to di,yisim
(AX2) esruszzna 3821ao92 a Me Rcv^ed ^.
W&sm the g,dehw= cmmattm ddaszhm ta viaa€aaem of wg-,
2io;m 3721.10 to 3723,17 ad da Xeve=4 C*de Ms as=axz-4 e2 sbw!
gkg^%* ffie adw,;rA^ ^xhq^ hmmr- N ehe vi"eeea c"we be
srorflwtzd wieaba tm deA oz' iEtm dqu Mro xbpwd zidafsst co^-
mll^vu of d^^^^ft cricrvenet amamium *A
sua?^ 3D tht ftaftme af ft^v* HEALTE.
+^w pe-sx who Rda+-= iw a seadezr& doti,^
Fams 3721..%0 w 3721.17 ttf ^.a
' ^ ftvizd £`,c& &aw be= na^z6
mag =P= rse ram xepusu lra be
3ss thr dv-2sugce8 o$'oa^ft WEALUL NnTczvmo-x vsm ^ea a^ ^g^ozE
s^ rmw foe v8vii das=g= V--Ss&ft fm th& sr$aa:a.^
(^^) wghig ftq dm a ^z st cowpwnt zxdrx thi$
-fiss 9'bc &Wa&WW ^ ^M HEALTH shag kwo'sgaEe am}r
Roy
cmoaYetE m'xxazA to 5t by a ham'z gzs'sVApasrce
covu.isl Aaoca any sum 23a s#em tbat she B^e xwtaew
sab51Mtkfi*w ksr, Eon wcgur^ft a^ ax tMiaseosx81, aas pAetmgiay
ama4`x -d.ituoo',s, ce+a wifEe= w+rm &qr. a m=vuaega. Maes,qL-enE°
8K&2 it w Eht znGGAXLEy vzm^ fif he '8g3BF5 to 3M'kcR24^',^k '9'Saffi
9'&saflg aE^q'^. .
(2) WaBC70} 4h3dy de$yfc a§L&BY89iliti8g a S6]ze0.rAa`13t b^ thsk wo-
kasutn° 1ihe dapmmmm ar#'agyn H^,^ B.'s'I3 m.ap ;mtvvXsvu mg wkaad
mizd;gam of wea^s; ra3..E g Eo 3721.17 eaR' ihc kv;^ Cod,, twozr
zk^% pakk-. or gc^an^eer^ adw.*& p==oad w Y9mwzBrwsy
sxt ogncad hl'dirrs`dm (C.X 1) o9'*i^,p zmgm, or if way, zaaaWsc
ucveext aHxgs a ssczs'v"szg a coxrepfmiut, adcr t3sv sorepbisq sae 8he
geavMce aa &g^ Dym wbam 3&e aneve8 vzaakon
owarV4
3im qkiYo+mw zrt=H if be wees to namRnpta€4
_akam ffi^ ^9.
(D) X srft- - ^v^s`pk^t^ ^4me dMww.esax aft" REAY.'k14
9"^ ^ aa^ isi E^#a^ 9^raH ^ rrnoYaxncsFS ad's^smna 3`Pa&_€4f
3aa 3721.17 o9'ftReewrd Cced-„ a+s oCnfts, ^ mpsomdcssn^
3aftg&d gxuscaft 8ds E^m zw1mr, hm ocmwtzd AT A HOME
THAT 3.S CMT#g'"#ffi UNDER mx'4`m OR mm OFYHE
'°j€3£:IAL ^.^URrffAC'F7 49 STa^M rzZO
42 ^SZ9a..
3831, AS A$r^WDED^ iq AaR
-4w aTE oNE 83R MORE ENLsMGS OR DR=I^
&.x&h:-T
CIES UN5M .a
"^CTIONS.5ff 19.35 TO 3 R I 8,62 OF THE
REYMM COb3E. W °&'E HOME IS NOT SO CERTMM;'nlE
dcpwMC33t OF hcoa& sha ^^ ^ xe9^^e^rr^Xaa ^ ^ ^rose^s'srs
^ 8.E@^ ^ ^a^eag ^b ^s n^,^r^^ecztaxe b^aaan^ ^mdeaags"^^
^+^ a3# f^s^ ^ F^ s a eas^n^ ^ sa^Sneen s 3:721. ft£2 0.za 3721.0 a
a;e ftdcgimd €",o&, or of att9re s Vo&ies, or ptsoodSOm adapaod W^r,^.a^ s^ae^^r, ^as ac^s^e^ k^ a^x2MnexeY ^9 9^^s^^a s^d ^^ss
^ 9rsr ^, s^9 ^ raas^i^ t^ fm sW
a^ at §ipmmsk £eB aGrrawm Ma89ais _-4wssxa. T9na fiw. zw
^ paid to 4mz smerA mmcm Awd cnm^y Ef c¢rnapamm wsffi fhK
ardex k vod shmi-m to 9aavt begSa znAcSe w^?&azz 3b^ rommaw 3saw
ir:R znn 4k mder. 7T= dqfflMft=i of be&a mag s'mt as *kjc^
prohAbift ft wczPauxxsYanaaa ark'm7v v°su#rteyesse af maiaseus 3721.10 daa
3M.17 c131pz Rev'sses8 4:crdebnssa9rs5gx Z5 the hc3aiav r.ewdsse9ead nnmdes ttEek s=tl.Fan ow be
mnew pwwamt aax aeapdw I I 9, ok'7.^ Rcvimd d",mdr9 =MvE 8w
m appw zmy be wa& to 93e o35es'i, mCcmsxsam gslam of sht com6y
zn wwah *xbmc ns Ivwzde
ne. dqprwRwk saft' hr,,93I'a ShA6 ssak^6^ ^ire^ n^ ^sa^x8 4r
OAVU my €^i^ moumd usdet ttfizis maloa xxIakh is zzxtgs^i^ &^Ser^y
dvA dbet ft TWaUra°N firw zppml ii; Md&w6wtcd.
M Av Eectrauc ffitm ^JR:`sUANT TO AN ADIUg2ICA'LICFN
HEARMG'G3N33ER 334DN (0) OFTHff R SEtCMNA de bacc
roadzjZd W,4^2nnnnx 3721.10 to 3721..fl? atfie R=re..ed $D&4, of ra&-I,
pa9dcks, - p-odoe- Wopftd p--=d to kh>xs* mutism my be
fmra6 mb2 6= dm: ssme hugae,°aM nor sssom thask fsxe huade,^{ deOars
ft at Goe Wess^.. Fo¢ ce3x M*04uwl uffiam, Ahr ha= WRqg fia
rin.m eoxs't 3es thaxe 4w h*n$md aasr Mrne uhm one aaxoammd dtt^Rxm
s4. vx"m as=3aoxa 37ztafo to 3721.117 saf tha R"Lws€ Codz
^ sgepmata oE9enn fix mb &y of tht -edagA¢xoa xuwd roic mcl^
mledasst who c3z%ea^ ^^ ^Afiran.
$Q'°;
n Naa baaaaesr uc aeeggwyee ne^a hom s9em mgim zgaazs2 stxay
pul wbm
ggg ^^ ^rko% gd faA,b fn sa.,ct6rsns; 3721_Ra to 3721.17
of the Rcvbw r-oSe, s"ndudtaeg, Wt esnd l6nm€"^'s u., £n63sg a srscno-•
ozerd arM ^ke. 9mes gxn^ cogmattee or ^^ s2k a
vaowm to the dvsxtnacnA of ^ IMALTH^
(2) }appwaRS u o we8mm 'sn any buaeg caxMxu^a asnacr this
w-ausa md mdi^aaa 372E.16 of the ^-.eZa Codcr
(3) fiW r, cIvr3 aoiw x#Y*^z a *r#m9stnon of %ecticew 3721_10 w
3721.17 mf8hC RzwWA 9:.ssdrr, e,r ooff= a matrn$y prom=ingworzey ar the sakwm,y imml asf ga w=itr9v azaalioja a =ctams
3721.IE6to 37I1_17 athe- Rgwnsa Cae&
14 wsder 4m gmog^duft oafliaed àm ffib =inqmo sbom or €m
crxegr:mym 5s f'mrsd to hrm agWa.V44 the,&ga4ac MW b-- rmcd vp
to raw *wmmd doPFxa.,
REor=W93ou=W 94"
54024
H 822 § 1 1990 ^essao,^ Laws---•-•Fuii Text
5513e^ HjaS a^na^nn a^ s`ffdirlaE^r^ sa^ ^va^a^ ae€ ^essmw
as^He^z4^r frswd knn iamta6p6m s^ar9^ ^s^s^ss ^^ s^ dbfs AuBHm
sHta bc^ gEvez to tHcx ^ssnzszt^uaa^ MaDu ian tha sxiun4y ht v®Fskh Fhe
Hew=s'R Hm2tra3 frar E^^ttt^
^ z^e^d ^Has^ v ^^ ^aa&^ ^risa^s ^^^H.aSfi ^as 33^H.H ^
ar^ aFs^ ^^b^a@ ^ ^a^ ^eeia^H R ^ ^ ^ne^ mfl ^t ^s^ a^aa^^. aaea^
DMs®s cc bme MMaaaLHerg khe ree HaY#m 714 actas»a nray be cnwsssrcaesrst by-ft azsdw, " Hay Hiz spcxssx on #is 6^x TIM CrocsA
aaaoy amatE WMH anrd V=tew d H`es^ vwwaw aaR' EEue rs0nsS,
nc zxacsn new awasaH m an grzr^"aag F=p mwsagH^ ==W,%
H'ecs Rkam to d,4 wwk mserabFp poarm-Med..
e;•,
^. .
a- :
As uwH mm sds'c^ ^;^^M;_zH to am^n mm-u & vAne
Rcv waH ^°,we^ .
(A) °# -& ft^m s^ee acEky'° xft= gigIs" as£ Hhe H'a33aaiw,
3-mH5b asfftb^aviw9
Czdr, ctbfftbm a onuesHCag 4mtpcst}ran a^ a a^ ^^ s^cesi^s^
m ;m ana4zT0x&Rft
baHi£y for 19aRP uzsentavyr s e3zldad xsr&T
H^ = mH 2Haa -,cciai Swasty R^ 49 Uak. 6M (H'335jy 42
:301, m avaendat
(2) A fxift OR PART OFF, FA4H.3.'H'&' gW & rxa602d ug Lt
ablw Awavv 6acility ¢¢ a aaxsaaag S;=9a4y nndrx'H`"iak XV€#H cer
XIX sf t5ce "Suc€d gemzHbr ASA!¢-"
UM HbEFAM KMWF.t3'i`sB.'iP'+CAUSIN4n H'HYSHCAL
OX RECKLMHe°f CAgHHpMgz ^SW£aUS H'HYsZCAL
HJ6.3H`3b4 TO A Ro&3wH` sy PHymcm, 83I2N"H=e4cT- w=
TgE REMEK'!" Op, B4" USE ew PHsSICAL.op, a&mcAL
RESnAHN'&o MMaCA'DON, OR MLA'HION AS PHHNIS&^
MMT, FOR STAFF 4ON5PE41ENCE, RXCM8 °dMk", ,RY^ A
SURS-I'%I'M FOR '7RF-H'9 MWF OR M AMO$.3N-0 'H'HAT
PRPJMUM RAB9I ffAn4AN AM T"A'^^
(C) 'N3^'sLBCr"' MEANS H$FK3U.EMY FMUH+HH s TO MO'PHDH~ A. MaDENT WI"#-H .ANY "6'R-EATMENTy CARHe„
^'oOODE3, OR MRVICE 4^EFEMmy TO MAINTMN im
H,'bH OR SAF#:rYOF "H'M RM'bE4T @IEEN TEE HFABHUH^^ RESUL'HS FY^ SERM^ PHMCAL H4eRM TO TfM RX9DENY:
(D) "°MTS"H°EH£3PHPHAT$(kN° MEANS DEb"HQ.H'nA+H'C'.^'r,
^ETRAUDIN£s, OR 011MRW1SE ^'9BTAINING T3E RFAH. £3R
PERSDIRAL. Mflti{?IMTY
OF A XESIDLENT
" AW MEA+PS
PR33HHMH^M
)%Y H HE RE%HSEj
CODF
_ HHtiFEIMHH~HHa VI£:bH-AT&43NS OF CHAPTM 291g., OR 2913_ OF '^^ REV'9^^
CODE
(n) kREM^'sFwT- MCLUDFS A R^'.SMHnNT, &'^.'fl`HHN'Ty
FORMER M03W'H` OR, FA"B'HEN"fl' OR DT^1Y°
.,.HiAsm R29%DfFN'g" 00- H"A"IMH•H"F OF A LONG-TMM CUH~ FrAc&,ay.
(F) °fl'HYSIg:AaH„ b8EMAD3"fi"° EM THE a.b^ME Mr-A9dHk^d^^'x
AS IN 'e'E.CTI{hN MH.,H¢H OFHM RHVLqM C5DF[Q" L`B!EMICAX RM-nLAANI°" $W IIE SAkhW &MAb.N94S"a
AS MHH^'^I}C9N 3721,10 OF TLM RkVISED MDHa.
$^ '°^S Arsd marsaaag-edaEe's s^zxca ts' ^ Ykte^ wrs^ tH^^eed Hy rwr a3ex • ^^c ^ by the ps#s^.i^ 3^^
uu3^s +^^cx I 14^_ cnF:#e,R*v:.sr,e& ccac°.m
^k} "NW,e a6a3a°` u= ar- m nnndiuidwH. wbus ^ Ht^ aa ^g
-d nurAft-Maed nrn= Yo paYi=tzcx msdaxe£s zxbst Snve 2rxs^
r-r'dHY9e a'.kw tbaz a H•ac=&,;d tseam pracmsmag macds6ug
sn#AxadwoH wharo prawrASHw M+rA83^P ^^,^1'YY4L'= a'E n 'pwmtem EYkb=1 --laky
.S fisY.°A^C'$^4E'fSytl.
6rm3?h pnfm6ma3." MR2M 0 oH'she foHEowanistwA
475^ ^e &^
.. 1i
:e•i(
(a) Awp swZr-k&A&d A b3E4SH^^,"€' OR on'T'dAL Hk YGMNwr HJCEMW H.EN9'OR OLWTEBH. 4385.. OF THE RES'H^€3
CLADE^
(9) A14 GYrOMETPJS'H' H.^CMVqFZ UNDER CHAPTER
47:d5. €1FZ THE xr3^.°^ H.3 CODE;
(10) A 3'mmmR,os'&° ucENsm YnqDH^ caAn-ER cnqo
entFTHH~ R -mSw CoH;3r-,
A
^'+^.OE^x^e ^^^'d^ UNDER CHAPTER
47^ OF `^H^^
(12) A CRIHKGP9HACTOR Hzmzsacr3 widcw $xud&X&VR CH948'
TEHH 4734. a£'&e Revised C^ 4wkwFek^
^^•
(13)A ^3^ S
'7^8Ts R^OBWE H.?B:."01SMO9k
TEMPORARILY H_KXMM xtma4cse. 449,- 475He of 3be
Hkzrs:sgd Code.
0^m t°sa^erscy *-niBnnaBim pt^am ° s^sx cr^ ^ ^
E^ whirk the czMpd=cy'dof a saasz Ai§e Bap ^msa^ nmuixw
:ane3 sr^ac^ wKsrzcs a^ vvauwgz&
^^ "H'zaacca^ ^neaH exs.^rbeq ¢ usHr^axissm gs^wass^rs" ^ra^s ^
program of nww s3de bmnszsssg nsad c+raHumio-e e4• wmpezzcy &n
R-&- w-T, -d -9 _322e6
M1M Rcpmft d xbnasw m 33%W4 aasmnmsq-, H'rsazax^
te nwst; mw-afl%ndo gm ^^^^
(A) I3'O .H=€CEH^SM HEALTH PSd.CbMS6ONAL WHO
KNOWS OR SUSPECTS T HAT A HFMMEW HAS BEEN
"b7SED OR H',YEMZLFM, OP, "H'HIAT A. R M geaT`S &RLH3"^.'RT HAS REEK M6SAH'PhOk'RIA110, BY ANY YMMDUAg tWiD BY A U)NG-'H-H:`i^EP' CARE H"'.^.CUM TO FRQ,kwE EMVICES TO REMEN'H's, SMUL )FAM TO RM:R'H'
THAT MOWLE33i.'aE OR. S.)SY'IMN T€3'HHE DHRECMHH. OF
HEALTH,
(D) ANY PEMN, H;MFCLWJDEH'Zrx A HHES€gSFxr, WHO
KR53WS OR SUSPECTS THAT A KMD'Hn#+9T HAS H6EEM
e^WJSM +F:3P, Ma3 3F,,^H"H:-D, d3R THAT A RESIDEf4I °S PROH°..
ERT"1¢• HA.x MMM BY ANY IND.HVID` UAL USED BY A LONG-'HERM €`ME FACILITY M, PROV'PDHn SERV%EW TO HHESIDEN€S, MAY REPORT THAT
KNOWLEME OR S€HSnOON To TRE DTRH~CTOR OF
^^
(C) ANY PERSW WHO LK d"3D H'9nHM REPORTS =3 kPH:CTW AH3g3V„ NMZ3ECT, OR HuF-UHaPRD"IAM+DN TO
fM 3^^ECMR OF .HMA,LTH, H°ROW^H?ES WORMA'H'HON
D£1M%Z^'r AN HMti'E,.^"H'HGA°9`iON OF SU.°s^CMD ASUM
NEM.H"d"rHrk9'^.^3^$,^4,.^8^N C£3^"ff'A^'^."^ R°!' "£^
H}HRE:^"O3R.,
OR OR Fh.X-nCIFATM IN A HEARBYdG COH+^DUC I UMER SE)M€33rH 372113 OF TM RMSED CODE
IS TdOTSIMnC£TO CRIMgPH'el ff.. PROSEC€MON, UABH,E M
De9^AKM-S IN A "fM°A" 93P On iER D"d9H<.. A€"d'H63Ny OR SUBIEC°T T O PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINARY ACTION
BFZAUSE OF &g1.H^.'&^ OP, LOSS TO POWN OR H'ROPERI`l
ALL^8".rJEDL"8" APJSHN+G FROM THE MAKT^N^`.s OF THE
HH-,'7MTK P'H¢.E3VIMON OF MH-g7+RMAMORb, OR PARTIL`HH^A'b'Hd7+'N IN THE FHFA3tHNa
M) H^ THE D9HH.E.CTOR MkS RE^l'.kN TO BH:E-HEVE T13EAT
A V^O?ATSCHN OF DIVISION (A) OF 'HHHS SEC"H'90N HAS
OCCURRED, H^ MAY RM°Gk2.T .PHE SKfSff€°H`H;E? VTOIA-H'HON TO 'RM FiH?PROPbà1le$TE PXOFESSllCK!9&. UCENS3rt^^'
.e
AUTHORITY AND TO THE ATTORNEY GENH.RAL,
COUNTY H?'ROSEC#'MR„ OF, oyam AMOP'MTE LAW
ENH'M^.,'^rHENT E2H°RCLAL
M NO PERSON SHA-.. KNOWkAdOL"s'' M14KE A fl`9aUE
AE.H.A.dt:sAMON OF ABUSE £3Hk HaY.H;C'nLECH`• 83F A R'ESWH~ddT €3Hk.
MHS&P'HxROP'Hk.g.R.'R"HdDN OF A REM95mH'H'"3 a'ROF&RI'Y, OR
KNOWN£z̀^,'^' SWEAR €3p, AEMM :l°ffHH~'MUkR OF A FAffM
fr.T.L^E°xATHC3M WHHN THE 9h.LLH:GA-fl82N IS MADE r-OR
"g'&HE 3''H.9RY9^E OF WCRWMATM Am•£&87FS€.
t7$ ^ akpica uhr^Apia - 0Sy%j=H dmvy ffiwkeaml HH=zed
z^ w»c sL^ b 6 CKAlrI'H^^ +HMcf^ZRcazod d"uaHq,
(3) A ^^ z9rtHmed Hcn ^4'^^,63H of H.9a e k^rs^
3321M
F, aanemta^g°e" ^' ^qsges^.^, ^ss^^ae^ n^vsi^
y
^ 2-1D^.Y^^
^L) A phqjardm% a8h#aat for saHicetx aphysse= HassW a wa€`xd
=tffisaH0 of asiAm£r"m "sssmd amdax mcfimm 4730.04 of the
R&vsxeif Oak
(5) A sqAtovd nmusr erF &=Md pmekHml xewse fiouLsed mdcx
char- ^cm. md'&e Rvrko €".ek
(ifi) A sedw wm&ex CR F HCENSM HNDMITNHFENT IMAh.
4"d'S:ePJMR 5^ g A ^3,^.. "t^^ e^Po^'e^^&'H' c^nH`^
caBd^' ^sad^5 .'' ,a CRAYM 47W^ a thr 9Z9iRZd CAsc9r°
M A sg=cb p.a.'Z3Yrrlq^zt &v agdkiQ& Fnflrasgd sDderon4nese^
^W,-ff CRAYM 4M cX eHut.Xvzed d ode;
(A) THE DnRF.CH'4?H8. OF HEALTH SHALH.. RELM'6sH;,
H^EVIIEW, AND HN'4`'&STHGATE Aff.LMATI;DM OF feRM OR.
NMLW"b' OF A RESIff;PENT £37R. P+HMPPRMRPAMOA9 OF
THE PROPERTY OF A RESHDM43" BY ANY 9k49DH'VM€,HAhL
IMEi BY A LOH"¢C-'b'MR$ CARE H"ACU.H'H"'!' M $RCHWff3H;
SM%IM TO 3 RESK)MM
($) -um DMBM-m SHAU mmm FNH;3HNu
s"S R^'.,^AVD^'s 4&.LL.a
^&ED ABUSIC NWF,ECH; OR %kHHSA"RO^^-fl0N
OF MOPM'RY AFTER DOING Pam OF THE F011,0'63ING:
(H) HNYMMIC'sATING 77fE ALLWR,.'H`M AND DEMbUNING THATgHME 19 A ^',.Fi SOf+HkNX U£H: Fb?8k H'H'^
^^^x,, ioo
. 5--183^^
^922 § I
1990 Smsia^n Lavr.---•Tu3l `1°^^
(2) uIVAI+EG NOT'sCE T€3'ME MDr-IMT5AL NAME3 M
TRE ALLE^"sATI£3^ AND AFFORDM Mu A, REAsoNAnLE
+^^C'^^ R '^'e^+ -y"6
p^ ^
3.^. ^^qAA
^93^
J^
^
f a.
°
D"^^9^p'^ks"{^^
^^^^^ y
^'6y
}. pry .
^
^^
¢.+^
^.yq 6±^K,GvlCsy1y.]{ay
Aya➢^y
a-^f
S
^py yy;yp.;slclyXp.^ p2a
" qy d
,^Gq++t
➢Y
^pSC P22Y2's
^
'4II AN AVL.S^
JfAE S.ESSSiI'E
ASR'}RY
IE
2G.,[Gn
gq^
^^
p
➢-AIlP.5^3
dy{0!¶.
¶.6.➢<
^•^^ 'WfC. ^G'^'^
a3^yU
^^C
q p^£^
^ y ^PPb^IesYET^' Q^.'pE^ €2 ^ p sR
^3'!f^^
^t^q ^'si€EPfi
61.96, 53Ka.,^."^. 'r° 'S£9fA•11 .^Y2E 1r]OF
F TffRE .^f^ifOiY/ CO^K_
MR PURPOSES OF CUMUC35M A F9^.,2^Y'eb.^'a^"n UNb^^
TMS Sk#; M?d, THE DSfl^ECMR MAY M6}9E S63^POEX^
^OWELLING ATMDAN^ OF ^MMES 09 PROD ➢i£ TkON OF DOCUMENT& THE SUBPOEN,$S SHALL ^E
'^MVED AN 771E S§ME MANNM AS ^UMEWAS AND SUBp^ENAS 9fiLCO ' bECM ISSUM MR A TRMJ_ OF A CI'VgL
,?t,Cni1N INA CC3£s`RT OF COMMON PIXAS,. &F A PERSON
'^AO IS SMVM A SUBPOENA, FAMS TO ATTEND A ffPEeTRI+aG OR TO MODUtE DOCtMENIM OR REFUSES TO ^E
SWORN OR TO ,FNSWM s9 NY QLMT€ONS Ptit°5`o M)4
THE DIR&CTM MAY A"LY TO "£iiE COMMON Pi<FaR^
COURT OF THE COUNTY €H WHRS;H THE P^rboN
^DM O^ THE CDUMY M WMC3' "&"M LONC^T^
^OJE FACZ.k"kY IS LOCA"#ED, FOfl^ A MNrEMW £^FDM
AS IN T^ CASE OF A FAMME OF A PEMN WHO is
SEKVF-D A SgB.E^POENeea .£SSUED BY THJE COURT To
ATA"EIM OR TO .#°CaA?DUU D95CLRaH•5 OR A RMM&L
OF WCH P&I8.7+N "9"S3 7CFS•T&f-Y.
(00) #tE'DM VIREC'Mfl2-FR+eDS • A°He4`d'AN WDi6'MLIawL
139M B'71' A LONC-TMM CARE FA8 UW AS A NURSE
MDE HAS IhWLECF'ED M .dB99SM A b^^Oi'r OR M9 a3.FM6)PRUTM PROPERTY OF A RESFDWT, 1•6IE -nir4,E.L
kzOnr°3.'THE 31°aDIVID3^ THE LO%d&TER16$ CA9E.E; FACjy_
ITY bSING ^ INDIVIDUd-0L Wa A NMW AIDE^ AN3:FTHE
ATTORNEY sENER.e0.k9 COUNTY PROSEC3TOR, £3R.
GUIM APk°&k€bk°RIATE -$.AW MmRcn.NT_ 4'3MCIrbE.,
AND SHALL, IN ACWRDANa W.#^^^ MMON 372a_31 OF
'#BE REMED COM INCLUDE U+Y TM NUME AIDE REC,
1STRY E^rA3^^aHM UNDER T3AT45E."IION A S#`ATEYA&W DE'3"A^s̀a€N^`r Hm FE3bDINfi.z,€. .
J2) gF THE DMEC^'d^+R^ FWDS THAT AN MMDUAI.,
O•kWM THAN A NURSE AIDE, iFSM kRY A ff ON4rTEXM
CARE FAC91a•Y TO PRDVME _'^ERVJM T53 REMMM
U" N-E^"sftEC€M OR ABUSM e8, RES65ENT OR ^P^HSAPfl'^0MATED MO&'MUY OF A RFMLSENZ HE SHALL NOTIFY
`#'&9E INDI&IDUAL, n3^ FAcnn°tf USIN'G, THE HND£V8D$Y^ TO FRCbVI3ESER"i7^CES TO RES9DENT% ANY fiPY'ROM5ATE PR8^.^fl MM4?NAL 3.T^G AUTHOR9"£"SP' Ends.RWHW UMEZ TME XI:4tU 01- IIM REIP•ISED C£D14 AND
THE AFYS^^ GENERAI,, COUNTY PROSECUTf3k 4'sr,
^TMM APkWPM-M LAW ENFORC0403T OFROA3- %F
"YBE #NDMDUAL M NOT LICENSED UdD^.`^8. Y rrLp- XLVU
01F.T^^ REVISED CODE„ THE D$RF=CBpS&fl•FL1., IN
e^CCORDr^CE WYM SFX'Y.`If3^ 372132 OF M-E REwaM
CODE, ALSO IN4LUDE A STA7iEr8ENr DETAI8.BI4`.z E3IS
MD&PoY^'sS nq TIM, NURSE AIDE REGaS'TR9f.
A N.YRSE AIDE OIK t'THM M£bNID6 TAL tY.B4DUb' WHOM
A SI'R'I'^MWr ft.e RJEQUIRM gy TMS D^UGN To BE
8NCLBJD^'IN THE gdg3FM AIDE RWMMY MAY MOV"DE
ME ff9Sg-E£°TOP Wab3 A grA"3.•EMEN$ b$i.^"edTIFM^P'a TBE
DWXTiER,'S F9NDvN5'z AND EXPLAINING •€IRE ORCUM,
SrA3'+dCM 4'?F€'H^ ALLEGATkOM T M STAWAUNT SHALL
P^^ ^R
{d
?q^
+ny
9^o^y^y ^
y^y^ ^
,^qYp.y^
y^. ¢3 rI^
p^,^^
BEb
Ep°e.^^ FiBF3E ^`&5^'^^• ^Al^ ^
➢lSn3.MrM V^J64 6^SL^396 ➢.2^ESAY.n
(DX 9) W TM DFRFrMR &'#NM "9."I€tkT ALLEG-ED"NEG,
^ ECT £B^". Ab3U''E OF A REMDEN'b" OR M9SAPfl'RS3PRI,#a'g3.g3N
OF PROPERTY OF A ^IDErf CANNM BE SUBS'E`r43iffS
e§.•Y'E5,89 HE SHALL NO"rIFY THt IX^YV^4&AUAL AND
^UNG^ ALL FbM AND REMRW OF THE INb'ESTgfxA•'n6.)N AND TM RF-14HdM^ BY DG9IN^'s ALL OFTHE VOL,
(^) REMOY8HO AND B:eMRcDYIN4z TM F9EM AND
B,ECDRDS^ {SPJ("sWt4LS AND COPIES, AM L3E=N.fs ALL
MD-Ex REFEtENCE5;
09^ REPO^."^9N^"z TO THE NDP?'WP3A,E. THE MA7"URE
AND JEXTF-NT OF AA;Y YNFCbR-MATIO3d ,A.BOt3'C HIM
^^^mmn"rm To An'Y' on9Ed. MWN OR ^'sg)'6mAPMEN'F' ENTBT$` B'§°TM La^RWWP, OF HEALTH;
W OTHERWISE MqSUMN^"sTH^.'^' ANY Or-AMINAT£ON
OF RLFS AND RECORDS 3'N QUMION SHOW N'^
RECORD WHATEVER WrM PM#°ECr TO nM 3NDMDUAL
(2) WHEN FILES AND RECORDS IjA41^^ ^^^N
E7Ek'T3N€a"M UNDER D#V}S^53-N qk^^^) DIF 'fl.HE°B SEKTIAG.KY
A^y^.
^ X3G.^^ Ay^
py^P 3^3^^
^9y".a^^ Fy ^
Pt^t^ fld^;r"S
l^ • 9^.^
p^y7,^•f^F^^, ^ydb^3
1
pLQ^r'd^b^e^Yy, E1SS:, ff3^}'R.^.%^ ^Z, G ,^, > d^.L, X{"srE^' }." USOfiE
^V
y ^^
'^
^6y ^p
yz^^
^.9q
^^ ^+ y^- S
O9^ ^
.^9^
'^' MRL .'6Y H'^^F
^py^
k'iL
^y
yy
.yp-^, ^
f i?3^^:6^°a^ , qf^
,^
^
'^
, q^^
y^y^'
}y^^
M^'G^
'.^
6GJ1^ ^6 ^-Epp
q
Yp
8^S4^f•^^
yL
^
lQL^.^
s pr>fiKR.9
^.^.L^i.^ LM1➢d
)inrtAS^R.]t YMY
TO ZyjT.^
S Sy^K A,L:AS.LN'A4 iAf^liJ^.fVya.
M124 Rdae^ea P-hMea9 , 124"01 (A) AFd3 PERSON OR.GOVERtBMOTr 'MY SHALL
.REr9U€eTE eV.e"
.sA04ST AN EWb DYEE OR ANUMER HYM-.
'fJF.PUAL USED BY IPX rERS83A$ Ca t"^OVMRNMENT
DMTY "11D PERFORM ANY WORX OR ^.KWCM WHO, M
GOOD FArM MAKES.R.'.^EPOR"£ OF SUSPWrM ABUSE
"^RE PROPERTY OF A RESMENT; XXMCA'£ES F,K.iNT&59:.
"tlN TO Ay9mm Sg3cmA REKMT;&'RiDV3J®ER WORMA•T%ON D€Eg€?^G AN INVMTiOATI4W OF SUSPECTED
ADUu$^'., NSOLEC£ OR MLIAPMOP^."3••BON CON^^^D
W DS DIRYXhOk M- H:fiALM OR P.lRTflCIPATES R^ A
MYaUZ CONDg3C YM UN€,'sIM ^',M£3ff 372 f.23 OF THE
REVMM CODE OR IN ANY OTffEk ADMINISTRA'E'M•OX
gUDICIA,Y,. fRGSFMH&Z^'aS I'MU'AINING TO rdE S€FSP'£CM sB9ISE, NBCJ-Yt°A'R OR 4KESAPMOrMnOM MR
PURPOSES OF THIS D&'MEW PXb••,^b U°XOR'Y' AL8."kONS
MCLUDE DLSCRARR"xMGt &'bEMO'g'£NG, OR TRAFd^^
RM THE'EMFWYEE OR £3•MM PMWNQ MEfl°FRIN^"x A
E+E%'s,€s1"M WOfYK PER&€3^MANCE Et^', ^..UATBOPk' OF THE
IEMLO'd^ OR OTFER PMMK, RED9JaN8°s '314E BENEn'fi Pe 45fx OF1. W€3kZK rp MD-EGO OffTm Ev£^'S.fl^^ ^R
O^ PERSDN, AND ANY OTM^ ^CnON kMi'M9^ED TO
4MrAlBATE AGAJNfi'9` '3'HfE EMP&,6)YEE OR OTEUR "-R(B) NO R'ERsON''FAk GOM£8MF.2iT ENM-Y SHALL
REI`AL€d@TE AGAINST A ffitESMENT° W^O REPORTS S93S-kTE£:TM ABff.FSF, NEGLECT, d:3R MISAPPROPR9AT9.ON; BND$CA'BTS AN MIF^MA]H TO MAKE SUCH A RE`OX7C; x ^^YwFs wmimkn+L4m D€.8RINC'x AN bNVE01GAT&ON 4W
ALUi°aM AB€9 SF, NEGLECT, Da WSAa'PRO$"MPA.MON
CONSUC'aM B°s THE ff3gREr-TOR; OR P°ARTID9"^rm m A
REARFN^r̀ UNDIER ,'4'EM^N Ma..^3 DIF TM REVISED
CODE OR IN ANY O'MM 9DMENWRAUVE €lR JIDFCU^l
MOCMDM^'°a PMTAnqNS'x TO TM SUSM„7ED ABYIS^Fl
k3Ex
9 5_EC9', t 8P. MfaeRPPfl€Ok°RIfir,nON; OR ON WH45^^
BEHALF ANY MER PERSON OR €`sOYMNWNT 3-;W8aY
7`.41^ ANY ^F IISOM ACTION& FOR PLW°8^.•^ OF nUS
DIVZION, RETAL$,ATORY AMdSNS INCL'#YgSF AB^SE^
'bERIK9aL THREATS OR OT$E$P. €b14,lkSH LANGUAGE,
^,'w,j4^`aE OF ROOM .iRSSYGNmm4Ty 'b9n}FF#OLDIKG OF
SERVICES, FAILURE "k CB PRO'b:9#3R C,OaKE H9d A nMELY
MANNER, AND ANY 4kT'aFR A MON 3^^D TO
13„E.eA,UeA,TE ACzAINW TBE RESiDEM.
JQ ,6.Y8'X' PE' d.3N HAS A CAUSE 83F ACnOA9,feUMMT A
s'-0MKN OR GGVEEB.NMENp EMU°f' FOR 9$ArXM RESULTiYd'd"a FROM VIOLATION OF D@YLSiON (dc) ()R M OF T7'E'#^
^IECnON0 IF IT F1°a6DS THAT A VIOLATION HAS
€3C.,^3MUM, THE COURT MAY AWARD DAMAGES AND
^q^5^
^
^
{Q y
. ^y^' ^
^-.pb^t^fY°
dfi^
'k'p ^y^
i^
.'!+F^ ^q THE! 6d^^
'^y^y
^t{'t^9.^8g,`^ PuH,^'^"•A'^^
^^ryy
y^
Of
4l.K. (L^^O^ oVqM
^b
^^
8 L^
5^4yaTi)NllSY.C+Ei Y'cS 3,O2"^.^ ^ S^l)'
^N ^tpT
^ ,{Ld^^'^P^Rq+Y^^y
E dA.L^' YF^Si^LSJIL5S2'W }
JE.fLi,
.L,.
•
^k^-^a ^.a^m^da^sst^'s^y a^$ it^se^maa^g°s^ j^ ^7,^•1^••9Pd^
(AXi) EXCEPT AS REQgdW.W EV ODMT K3RDM AS
NECESSARY FOP. THE AI3MINWMATION OR ENEORCE
I4IIN•a' OF ANY STXT1JM OR RULE RE#AIIN€"x TO LONGTERM CARE FACFUnM 09 AS PROVIDED I3+d Dg'fPM£;fN
(D) €3F '&'HbS sw'9"Fw rkm R3%9EC9Y3R OF NT, 6^..'^ ^ALL
NOT ®19AMME ANY OF THE ffOUDWBNd°aWMDUT TfiiE
COMENT 53FfHE HqDIVID83Ab°s, OR OF ^^ ^AL REFRE_
SENTATRVE:
(A) T&^E RAME OF AN #NftSMDUAL WHO RMR•M S@.tSPEC'#'M lhZB.ESE OR N^'.stECT OF A RFSMENF' OR MESAP°
^ROPTCIA.'9'8C8I5b OF A imE+m'd•'s PROPERTY TO THE
DIRECTOR;
° (b) THE NAME OF AN INDIVIDUAL WHO M4X'9sIDES
INFORMATION DMIP9G AN INVESTIGATION o^ sus9'ECTM dkBUW,NMLWT; OR MISRPP$FOPk€IA'a"IdhSoY C€3Ad•o6Jci BY6HEE33REL3•'OR;
I
- - - - - ---------_ ^ T- - ^^^.:.."..-^._.:..--._......---- --- ---^
-•.^.®.;,^
^;•.: + • e
^ x 026
gp ^r
^" ,•.s , • .
3f.4 A322§g
1990 Sesaa^^n Lawati----•Full ! exi
AM ^^ ^ ^^ ^
a^^A^ "3 Hi^ l3k'+;3A,L Hf^^}6^ %^ n^up+ fl[d rk^}g^fe f3T^ mz^^3 zv^srad"s:an g^e}Vffi g^r^ ^=cw
£BI'^,kd$,^.X EX&Pf:aR ^s,p^8^'°^S :^^.£^^3^H. H9^H,
(2) sTeN e4.GENCY OR INDHTdIDU,bL TO WHOM THE
g^^^ zsn+s^ ^n^ ns^cR ia^ ^ Hssr^^a rm ^^^ r^g wze a^az^
DI^'•CTOR IS NEQT.FHH~ED, Bl ^Ug-F OgDER 0
^ FOR THE ritHnec ^ ^zrase, ass a ^}^z b^xsa^ cr a 3siaaaz 8, # ^96f ^^u
^33 ^1Q^^r"M§,nqD^9 ^3^". &Par^^,3^P8 H av8^eH OF A^$9h^E€^ b y i^ #'ug°sfly cTnT HAnRy Hr d98q su mcss ^ bY
RHe%.w,'^'ft3oF^H TO ^^e ^"
, .c-T^H.H^ 6eA^.^ F,>,CH^,fl-D'jEa, TO ^^^nfl^ t^s HtlT^ d, 34^S^R ^ 3nask ncnf ^na3X^p cs^eanpH^ a
rs^ '^^ ^a^Htlea^nman 3?ro^ H^ 1^# a, i^°^EB ^^^^
^HEk^1M ^^"TI¢^g Tb^ Hiq k3H+dff"`&kN $A^H)
BZrH' TM^ ^DON Me@U NOT $H ^ ^e^E ^^ R^k^Br8r9 ^ ^ }3,ciHnzp ^ ^aaasZM can?mo^n grrs^eaaa^ x g^ ^
•^'^+N '^L6HP^' •^ ^^^^IM OF '^ ^3ff^P^X,;L ^`xrzH^ ^d^^§ ^ sasae^ (A) ^ ^
W&M VF£3iPLD HHE OR ^OUM xFj,S6?NAny T^W To I%rw
H^ss^ }nnzk^ i^see^ ax^ $ a^ 3^ naxit
I3^^:tiQ3"^"^^E3^, OR OF H^HS LWrH,L ^.^'RES^ ^ € nA^, ^h ^ 8e^z} ox'^`^'^^Y ^Dt E ^&^ aHde ^^^E zaz di^z^}
^-^ THE t^^r^€ ^' OR fia^r 4'iI, B,' ^^.HHa^ 3°8^ #^zan ssC¢ °^n sfaa^H ^nss#r #6c mmm azdr H3ne
^c3rda^ed^
R^^E g°f B^' ^'.H'H^ISI8^^3 (&B) OF "H`€^^ S^ ^'^Gp^e B3y ^^ ^ ^zhe crossx^eeda m^ evaaznee3srss paa^sa^Tn H^v+L3^eaT^s^H:3^,°^
ORDER,
OR
FOR
THE
,+^D3E^N^H"^.^'^^d^^,f
^37^
&asssd
the
ana'M
a`zdo
iz^n^^d^ns3^
ffsJa flbe
^H.-^^ ^ H^^
P ^ Aa M MA1^"7^z ^My
a^3 L{3NGMET-di wAsae &. 3 ^XH x^^a &^ ^ Ya^n7sdp sfs^ an^ ^y
(a) E%8"EPH' Ag M4243ZbED rY$ DM3353N ^^ ns ^nnzsre ^®de ^'or -^ q^xe F'svur anauaa9^ scs^ ^Hnn:
^I5°k^', ANY ^Rg^ 'H",'f' F3^^T8^ L^aF^ iuzH^ ncHedaH a^ ^zaaps^r ^¢^ ^yizfe t^^ ^c tusr
s Hn^ % ^
da^ H srsr b^e
H^d^., s^^'€'H^£H3^ ^Sd' ^'s^^H97m e^ 1 ^^a^ AN 33a^fi^ ^#^r ao^ n^aeavczH fesean ?k4e a^ a fsHe 0.
OR $ ^ )W OR d3F 71IN 'c&C- s^t}znnn 372E32 arf d3xm ^^ ss#zi^an^e^ ^
'4.'^''HHGgI,H^ MF9 TO H^^ '^ Il'Fd^ ^ naSxwn^fl^3 HHa^ra^ ^, d^ a^£ur^asen us ua^^
%
""fl"a''t" OF SUCH s#.e'l IYa7DE4f MIJAk., HS NOT A PH:fBH.Iev °sesg ia ?Hoe ptYrwucBect ^hauu,*agh tHeC rCasdM and iraac mH' H9c€ 111140WREC'.ORD MR 3R>fl Mkpo= OF ^.."nON 10.43 CW THE
^P2Ei^ AND 33 NOT Si33^3EE^ ^b ^^a^^Ba F $fl) ^e^ ix^a vH^nns^ a^ aeae^ by ^^yHed^ as a ssuTae afe8e xun a
^• ^^k3^^i UNDER M^#^3^+E H34'Y_^k8 OF TR^ RF9pBSHi18
^3^ H
4^T^^ Em dkssr ax frfHn^s Ho^ ^ anny #arm^ advsra^tg ?^
. 8ema^
^exssyr# s^^a^^eg fnr^ ffs H^^^s s^r^
raz^gY^arxnae3 #, H^ a^^
""WCE" A.5 aPRd3VHDED IN g's.8'91EMN $0g OF `^ ^ ^6Rp °raz^,{msRo#,»oyd
Fxasyr ftTt d^eErar a, 9^d3„^ ^
s^sssss. gas^rm z^g^,y^g by gg^ ngfina;sxess ^^ea
O ,! n5
^3^Hk^F AND ^g4^N dD$ OF ^$$(DYri 3721 ,23 OF ^E
s3zvnxs^}rt
^^ +^8^E, °&^kF .^^'''^b^dft^S f^
^8^' A 9^fl^ CON^^ ama3x^rcHn^wnssm ^^^ saH ^2k ^ 8 az#^ aaa rrssscHsrexaaa ^ #Sfla^a
^S^^IR^b^d33^3^3F1^
&^^ £Ls sa€#t ne9nsa8 Hn^s ^a^^^
RBM2,H3'" Fop, TEE pg3
OF grcn+Tm ^smnpH^f
^ dsae^t^ssg
Rpons
^uzttE
M9_43 OF '^ ^E-qqsEo CD^
.4'H^YS]t 'fl'£?
di"nsis^ (A) of ^eHmxa 3^i 3a aH k^Ce ^,^,iaed
^^H9^F ^tH^P ^JC3^3^a ^78^H^^d
ydiE^^;
9"rxY^ a r r^tltHu^B^d
I-IMSM COafE. ^HH£BHH^^Ef.^OJF Huy hnezamzHcxde•+raskaafft( -3 ¢a6`th't,
:^E
•.€K$5db&
^dn^ ^ ^#fl,b^Hb^^^{3^M ^ AGENCY
27g
anS.€
' tlxtlCai kht GSSAd{...
^ #^fl^^ ^ ^^ eTas^sutls viRion ^TT^^ fz^sa,YHceca}^rsg ^^
e^^b^B^R F^H^bIS^"^sHR06&I8^1^^DR^R^TE3F flz^em^ a^n.^^na^a^s, ^^ ^^8^a^sE s.Hs^ ^aa+^rssn^ c^eeap^ ^
ra "t^ A grATXnM
R&^'
r•^
axia^x^
Hfs^ s^x^s^^a ^^^ iss
xHixLgiaax
cAMWr, "To3 L i3+`r 7^H^ a }4 H2.^ ^'9h.a H^"H".H^e
(^3 of EHe^' sex2ssan
TO ^EURaM WoRwAmi3Pfl DESCRgg8M IN DR'H£3N W113 r°°n°flTaca d Qx? w zzn s€aaa^zaT^ mm ikaE4y, " jr,& &TV,sdaw
pxanssaMx Rsa alizioztl "Q ns s=tdm
OF T'^H^ EHi^9^'LbY^ ^3^ Ha^Fa^^+Y IN ANY
3^k 3fl u^€eHs^ $fl^^ ^^
!f ^s^^gtincT^,&5^imd.f^i}zfee^%h^a^^^s^^o^nx^ze^
ISTRATIVEOR
^^_ ^
_ C^
ae ^tFaasnn
H,^
^asmT csnmdcas8ad
6^ ^
Y^ aflsx^
__
^^^gv^^92fw^w^
^ A
^^ ^ ^^ ^ F^ ^C^g^', ^^ T^^.D a^s ^ ^HHe^ ^^ H-a^s^ ^ Zs^^ss ^Hr2H sitla^ e ^H^
o- • e ^^ e^s'., €^^.'s9^€DH^^. S€.n3^. .^+^,^ ^ arEhe °^^H ^^Ty A,-,I," 449 Sm- M
(€915)„ 42 i3.&C.
^r :'; ^^b.^^'^,+b.'d'^fl^I.1°'IIT3^+HI1^'^,^d^^i^HH3- ^'e^xssawc^s ^ua^ ^ au^^#^Tr^+ ^Hnv^titlca arsmT^ ssss Hess
<• ^F^ g9^B^FB^k7+ ^ Y3g^^t6Y^ gAy^H j^^ ^8^. ^C$ s^k^ k£k€^ ^
^# A^ the copapetxTntl;y+ em+zatnom
•
^.
^ ^ ^_ronmcHeaa^e^rxsac^as $^y ^^rssanr^ 3
;;: ^^g ^ ^ ^S^HH7^Y^
1 x H4D ^^^^' _
^k^1 ^^^
^ ^ ay
by ham aaaea^rx relird^aQanz ^^ ee4 d^d ^2nasen a^ x^s
^^SH^ dsa dH^ kras`srsx^^g
^xs^ a^3xnYe^p ^^Eimm
T'M
DH $°#3
^ asa:Rd^sH^H
ot t 2mu>tao>g And sxmnape
Ra.'b^:'b^3^k
OF ^$,^ S€^H„a.,
e^^3^9^k" RULES Ssas*2y roaaagkticE
PURSUANk 'fl O CHAPM 1 M. 0a a &H;E Rrr ^ ,
'^ CODE ^ d^ ^ a^n ^zx^cratt^ I^^ ^^s apnPs^+`a^H by asmul^ ^ EHem t#^ d^••
: IMPg ^^^^ ^ ^BCnONS 372s.2H `F'S3 332 s _25 OF 7°fBE k^r w^Hua^Hoxa ^R^^ ^^'^^ craaea^ sH^ ^^zaz ^ a^sTn^
79"dSM CO37+E g Z"HCH..fl3'DIHtiH^"s RH,3LES HH`^ESCRSSHl+a x
REQ£dIREwN7'S FOR 'nHlS RdOTIM AND REAM3+HG 931
^ ^^^^^ ^ ^re nnradrecEx risa^e ^P.^ aa^sccdez^ad
^ff ^Et
^^^ ^^^ S€ ^ TO^d 377 F. ^ OF THE ^'V&'^ k'^^va^d f°asr^a;
sxr +^aaa^?nn^
_ ^6^ a^ dfla^6 se^dz^xe, anad 'a"^4,°^ ^ ^' hetlnn sx^ec idHni^st^rt
^8-- ^ Hatl. sHoHareero^ as6dxas^ Vaa>aedHsed by ^ dop iad s^^e.
3^^R ^ OF ^^ ^89^ ^p^^^^ 83b' ^'61^
7^ T T3 ^ 6^M Hd9. OF THE ^t^#^ ^#Y^F9 ^fl8d_ BxiTn 3^3.^^^s^'d,^^^^x6^E°axH^^
^'E3., "k^ He.^}k`M MAY E° o-°ga^Hti ^^S JF PY^BM^k H4E 1989Q d9a^ ^di^sH^zt^ ^ 1^a^H es>^s^g^e 3m
H'^54^M^8 AND TEE pg x^ ^ ^snaas^ ^ec9u
s^^ ^£Rrs dHne
^^x ^^'^^H9C.E^. IN ^^z2a^ s^ff a o^rsc aT^eaTSass a}ilJe
^CCORDAdCH Wr9'd TAA`^^ alApTE;L R£bM .^DOpTM ^e^ ^sSsnd H^ ^ ^II^^xex^ hme ^ufatio,
SH•F&`s,s; BE Yd85 LEM MN9°'ENT HNDIVIDUA& aS ENRDLLM IN A ^^^ICEN^ ^°H^+^r"^R^ 43E AL^I^7.^Ha^G
THAN 'niE FXQH.ARSfl2.4k G HH^3^ ^6^5 ^^
^^3C Af ^'^^8N ^PROYM
a ETABU3HMD
B°`
-M
UNrM3
^•.^i.^
^&
gy
"H^i^
.
G-AHHD
OF H+flUkHS3Nrl OR ^^ AN AGENCY OF
ae"K OF ^L-M a9M
SrATE
WJn6,RN "R'<ICES ^e6#H^ ^ ^^F^^ H'
F', ^
^^^^
^^
H^^^"
^U^'°
^£^^ HgHg AND 1913 OF IHM °°^H,^a,. ^g^#¢Hry
A^;'
CARE
^A.^#.$^^
4 9 ^`rE.7'. (^ (a335n, 42 ^1.^.+i. 39EHo A.^ +^ Pvf^^TH3ED_ ^^ A C^k H^C^4 ^ FROM ^^ ^WR^ H^^^NG
THAT ^ HE INDIVIDUAL HAS ^UCCM.SFH.FLLy drOM_
3721.U FLtTm THE Couxam THAT s'EAff HE$ BAKC NURS€^+f"x
un 12-13im cKIB.^ S XNCLUDM
EWM^93^a
^t^tDK
E^£ CARF
Y AND
dx^^ P H'^k€^^€3pj3k
AND^h
pnWNAL
9apn3
t4%€kD
#aaa^
^. d^^xnn sa^$x^}^egy ^ a ^zH'^ tIAS StW-C=RPft H, Y C3MPUHED A Co
pmvs^^
^ a^s^ sar ^ basiss
Qn Fss^ fl., #.989, s^H'^ UATION k°R.(l^"
x^ ^€^3^£8$H ^^ ^^^
^8 e^^^^^ awsaH^%^er^ ^s^aa^'sm H.i'N^3^R b^'II'ISg^3N ^^ ^^' ik^ b^^^"H"53^.
&sz^a madxf eas.v:sa^ (A) of ^Hflmcn ^PH^ ^'ME
d^ $ OF ^H ^^A! ^?^£ ^ H dD^ 'Iff^^
3'a^l,^ H aaH• ^ftweeDdH
Cxe& ^} ^z e^H^yr aa^^ ^
wdw
^ #9^aa6 ^Hsas:^ ^,
m^ ^R( ^`g^ae Juaa^ H, fl^}EH, ssne H^ss^ d^Tx^ reT> ^3T2 siT^3H ^aee=
^^e
^ed^ aat 3+aH^r
kn$
4s than
k'oT^
TnsssT^a
Ho €^^9, sfltl^HH
HOSa^rza9^
3^ axu^
autl4^ kH3x
^San ^^e ^ rsneYHss
tRaa ^^s ^ ayeers^ azt^s~ nzrt a^s#i rse§•mqwxsnenTis or zEE^ (B) ss^ this
^Ppx. 102