(A)(1)(a) The state medical board shall designate one or more attorneys at law who have been admitted to the practice of law, and who are classified as either administrative law attorney examiners or as administrative law attorney examiner administrators under the state job classification plan adopted under section 124.14 of the Revised Code, as hearing examiners, subject to Chapter 119. of the Revised Code, to conduct any hearing which the medical board is empowered to hold or undertake pursuant to Chapter 119. of the Revised Code.
(b) Notwithstanding the requirement of division (A)(1)(a) of this section that the board designate as a hearing examiner an attorney who is classified as either an administrative law attorney examiner or an administrative law attorney examiner administrator, the board may, subject to section 127.16 of the Revised Code, enter into a personal service contract with an attorney admitted to the practice of law in this state to serve on a temporary basis as a hearing examiner.
(2) The hearing examiner shall hear and consider the oral and documented evidence introduced by the parties and issue in writing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the board for their consideration within thirty days following the close of the hearing.
(B) The board shall be given copies of the transcript of the record hearing and all exhibits and documents presented by the parties at the hearing.
(C) The board shall, upon the favorable vote of three members, allow the parties or their counsel the opportunity to present oral arguments on the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law of the hearing examiner prior to the board's final action.
(D) The board shall render a decision and take action within sixty days following the receipt of the hearing examiner's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law or within any longer period mutually agreed upon by the board and the license or certificate holder.
(E) The final decision of the board in any hearing which the board is empowered to undertake shall be in writing and contain findings of fact and conclusions of law. Copies of the decision shall be delivered to the parties personally or by certified mail. The decision shall be final upon delivery or mailing, except that the license or certificate holder may appeal in the manner provided by Chapter 119. of the Revised Code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1987–2021 · leading case: DeBlanco v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 604 N.E.2d 212 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992).
DeBlanco v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 604 N.E.2d 212 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 10דThe second and third assignments of error are interrelated in that the issue raised is the constitutionality of the Ohio State Medical Board’s choosing the hearing examiner presiding over the administrative hearing, pursuant to R.C. 4731.23, with respect to assignment of error…”
Korn v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 573 N.E.2d 1100 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 4דKorn also argues that the board’s order was void as it did not comply with R.C. 4731.23, 119.09 and 4731.221. R.C. 4731.”
Gingo v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 564 N.E.2d 1096 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 9ד” The board claims that the hearing was held in accordance with the law because former R.C. 4731.23, read in conjunction with R.”
Sicking v. State Med. Bd., 575 N.E.2d 881 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 6ד22(B)(2), (3) and (6); that the board’s order was contrary to law in that it violated R.C. 4731.23(A), which requires that a hearing examiner issue a report within thirty days following the hearing; and that the board abused its discretion in refusing to accept additional…”
In Re Heath, 609 N.E.2d 1346 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 8ד” By his first assignment of error, appellant contends that appellee, State Medical Board of Ohio (“State Medical Board”), lacked jurisdiction to revoke his medical license because it failed to comply with the mandatory provision of R.C. 4731.23(D), which reads as follows: “The…”
State Med. Bd. v. Murray, 613 N.E.2d 636 (Ohio 1993). · cites it 2דThe attorney hearing examiner was designated by the board pursuant to R.C. 4731.23, R.C. Chapter 119, and Ohio Adm.”
In Re Raymundo, 586 N.E.2d 1149 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 4דBy his second assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred in affirming the decision of the board when the board’s hearing examiner failed to render a written report within the time frame set forth in R.C. 4731.23(A). That section states in pertinent part:…”
Elec. Classroom of Tomorrow v. State Bd. of Edn. (Slip Opinion), 2021 Ohio 3445 (Ohio 2021). “0810(I) (a decision by the state racing commission to impose certain assessments is “final” and subject to appeal under R.C. 119.12); R.C. 3905.14(G) (a decision by the superintendent of insurance to issue a cease- and-desist order is a “final order [that] may be appealed”); R.”
T. Marzetti Co. v. Doyle, 523 N.E.2d 347 (Ohio Ct. App. 1987). “23, before one member of the board, the requirements of a fair hearing and due process are not met where the record affirmatively shows that the assistant attorney general who prosecuted the case was present during the subsequent deliberations of the entire board and the…”
Williams v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 605 N.E.2d 1311 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 6דInasmuch as the record does not reveal that the assistant attorney general assigned to the case exerted any undue influence regarding board action, we overrule appellant’s third assignment of error.”
State ex rel. Heath v. State Med. Bd., 593 N.E.2d 1386 (Ohio 1992). “R.C. 4731.23(D), provides: “The board shall render a decision and take action within sixty days following the receipt of the hearing examiner’s proposed finding of fact and conclusions of law or within any longer period mutually agreed upon by the board and the certificate…”
State Med. Bd. of Ohio v. Murray, 1993 Ohio 14 (Ohio 1993). · cites it 2דThe attorney hearing examiner was designated by the board pursuant to R.C. 4731.23, R.C. Chapter 119, and Ohio Adm.”
Sicking v. State Med. Bd., 575 N.E.2d 881 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991). “22(B)(2), (3) and (6); that the board’s order was contrary to law in that it violated R.C. 4731.23(A), which requires that a hearing examiner issue a report within thirty days following the hearing; and that the board abused its discretion in refusing to accept additional…”
DeBlanco v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 604 N.E.2d 212 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992). “The second and third assignments of error are interrelated in that the issue raised is the constitutionality of the Ohio State Medical Board’s choosing the hearing examiner presiding over the administrative hearing, pursuant to R.C. 4731.23, with respect to assignment of error…”
In Re Raymundo, 586 N.E.2d 1149 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990). “By his second assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred in affirming the decision of the board when the board’s hearing examiner failed to render a written report within the time frame set forth in R.C. 4731.23(A). That section states in pertinent part:…”
State Med. Bd. v. Murray, 613 N.E.2d 636 (Ohio 1993). “The attorney hearing examiner was designated by the board pursuant to R.C. 4731.23, R.C. Chapter 119, and Ohio Adm.”
In Re Heath, 609 N.E.2d 1346 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992). “” By his first assignment of error, appellant contends that appellee, State Medical Board of Ohio (“State Medical Board”), lacked jurisdiction to revoke his medical license because it failed to comply with the mandatory provision of R.C. 4731.23(D), which reads as follows: “The…”
State ex rel. Heath v. State Med. Bd., 593 N.E.2d 1386 (Ohio 1992). “R.C. 4731.23(D), provides: “The board shall render a decision and take action within sixty days following the receipt of the hearing examiner’s proposed finding of fact and conclusions of law or within any longer period mutually agreed upon by the board and the certificate…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 4731.23(E): 1 case
Elec. Classroom of Tomorrow v. State Bd. of Edn. (Slip Opinion), 2021 Ohio 3445 (Ohio 2021). “0810(I) (a decision by the state racing commission to impose certain assessments is “final” and subject to appeal under R.C. 119.12); R.C. 3905.14(G) (a decision by the superintendent of insurance to issue a cease- and-desist order is a “final order [that] may be appealed”); R.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.