State had HOH in its sights

State had HOH in its sights

Over the past several months, many of you have been reading about the House of Hope, a residential care facility that provided a home for mentally disabled adult residents. As with all such facilities, HOH was regulated by the Ohio Department of Health.

I was legal counsel to HOH and defended it in the actions brought by the department. At the outset, I should mention that the department’s cases against HOH are no longer active. There is nothing to gain in my writing this letter other than to express my concern about a matter that I hold dear — the preservation and protection of small business, the lifeblood of Ohio’s economy.

In January 2011, the department brought an administrative case and an injunctive case against HOH. In both cases, the department sought to have HOH’s license revoked. The injunctive case, brought in Mahoning County, resulted in HOH being forced to decrease its resident population and other restrictions.

In both of the cases, HOH often argued that the department was requiring that it follow procedures which were not required under the law. One such argument was that the department was requiring that HOH perform “behavioral assessments” on it’s residents — even though there is no requirement under the law. On Sept. 2, Magistrate Daniel Dascenzo, of the Mahoning Court, agreed and determined that the department was improperly holding HOH to an obligation that did not exist under the law.

But, by then, it was too late. Hamstrung by reduced revenues from a decreased resident population and further hamstrung by legal expenses to defend itself against the department, HOH simply could no longer afford to stay in operation. On Sept. 21, HOH closed its doors.

Of course, there were several issues other than the “behavioral assessments” issue associated with the cases. I am confident that, had the cases continued, HOH would have been vindicated on those issues as well. But we will never know.

Sept. 21 was a sad day for the residents who called HOH home and wanted to continue living there. It was a sad day for the 17 employees of HOH who lost their jobs. And it was a sad day for the owners of HOH who cared for the residents and “fought the good fight” to stay open. More importantly, it was a sad day for every business operating in Ohio.

Sad as it may be, there is a lesson to be learned here. The state, when it makes up its mind to go after a business, can put vast resources (tax dollars) in doing so. No business can withstand the assault indefinitely. Sooner or later the state will win — regardless of the merits behind its position. This is a theme that I have seen repeated not just for HOH, but for several businesses regulated and accused by the state.

Atty. James J. Leo, Westerville