State ex rel. Sizemore v. Veterinary Med. Licensing Bd.

Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary

In this case the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying the request by Appellant, Terrie Sizemore, a veterinarian, for a writ of mandamus to compel Appellee, the Ohio Veterinary Medical Licensing Board, to reissue a 2007 adjudication order finding her guilty of misconduct and imposing fines. Sizemore contended that the original order was not in compliance with Ohio Rev. Code 119.09, preventing her from pursuing an appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding (1) because the Board dismissed the charges against Sizemore, the mandamus claim was moot; (2) the Board have any duty to reissue its prior adjudication order finding Sizemore guilty of misconduct; and (3) Sizemore had an adequate remedy by way of a motion for contempt to raise her claim that the board violated the court of appeals mandate to reissue its adjudication order.

Download PDF
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Sizemore v. Ohio Veterinary Med. Licensing Bd., Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio2725.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published. SLIP OPINION NO. 2012-OHIO-2725 THE STATE EX REL. SIZEMORE, APPELLANT, v. OHIO VETERINARY MEDICAL LICENSING BOARD, APPELLEE. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Sizemore v. Ohio Veterinary Med. Licensing Bd., Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-2725.] Mandamus Extraordinary relief not available when object sought has been achieved by other means Relator had adequate remedy in form of motion for contempt against agency for alleged violation of court mandate. (No. 2012-0176 Submitted June 6, 2012 Decided June 21, 2012.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 11AP-298, 2012-Ohio-63. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the request by appellant, Terrie Sizemore, D.V.M., a veterinarian, for a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, the Ohio Veterinary Medical Licensing Board, to reissue a March 2, 2007 adjudication order finding her guilty of misconduct and imposing SUPREME COURT OF OHIO fines. Sizemore contends that the original order was not in compliance with R.C. 119.09, preventing her from pursuing an appeal. {¶ 2} Sizemore is not entitled to the requested extraordinary relief because the objective of her administrative appeal to reverse the board s finding of misconduct and imposition of fines has been achieved with the board s dismissal of the charges against her. See State ex rel. Sawyer v. Cendroski, 118 Ohio St.3d 50, 2008-Ohio-1771, 885 N.E.2d 938, ¶ 8 (mandamus claim is moot when its objective has been obtained). {¶ 3} Nor did the board have any duty to reissue its prior adjudication order finding Sizemore guilty of misconduct. Instead, as the court of appeals properly held, the board has the inherent power to dismiss charges against an individual who has had claims of misconduct levied against her or him. State ex rel. Sizemore v. Ohio Veterinary Med. Bd., 10th Dist. No. 11AP-298, 2012-Ohio63, at ¶ 13. The remand orders of the court of appeals and the common pleas court did not prevent the board from dismissing the charges. See State ex rel. Jelinek v. Schneider, 127 Ohio St.3d 332, 2010-Ohio-5986, 939 N.E.2d 847, ¶ 14 (court that issued mandate is in the best position to interpret it). {¶ 4} Finally, in the absence of a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, Sizemore has an adequate remedy by way of a motion for contempt to raise her claim that the board violated the court of appeals mandate to reissue its adjudication order. See Dzina v. Celebrezze, 108 Ohio St.3d 385, 2006-Ohio1195, 843 N.E.2d 1202, ¶ 14 ( the use of extraordinary relief to enforce a judgment is not widespread, because of the availability of other means of enforcement, e.g., motion for contempt ). Judgment affirmed. O CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O DONNELL, LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. __________________ 2 January Term, 2012 Terrie Sizemore, pro se. Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Walter J. McNamara, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. ______________________ 3