 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mankins v. Paxton3/20/2001
(ACCELERATRED CALENDAR)
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
On January 11, 1999, Valerie Mankins filed suit against the director of the former Washington County Department of Human Services, Washington County, the then director of the former Ohio Department of Human Services and the former Ohio Department of Human Services. The Ohio Department of Human Services is now known as the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, and the Washington County Department of Human Services is now known as the Washington County Department of Job and Family Services. The lawsuit was filed in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. Ms. Mankins set forth claims for relief of violation of Section 1983, Title 42, U.S.Code, violation of Section 12131 et seq., Title 42, U.S.Code (the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990), violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 794, Title 29, U.S.Code), breach of contract, violations of the Ohio Constitution, and violation of R.C. 5107.01 et seq. (Ohio Works First program). Ms. Mankins also sought review of an administrative determination made pursuant to R.C. 5101.35. Declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief was sought.
After service of process, an answer was filed on behalf of the Washington County defendants. On February 26, 1999, counsel for the state defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On August 14, 2000, the trial court granted the motion to dismiss finding it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over all of the claims. Due to the finding as to subject-matter jurisdiction, the trial court dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety.
Ms. Mankins (hereinafter "appellant") has pursued a direct appeal, assigning a single error for our consideration:
The trial court erred as matter of law in dismissing causes of action one through five and seven through nine of Ms. Mankins' complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction since she did not fail to exhaust remedies and the trial court would still have jurisdiction over the remaining claims.
The trial court found that the essence of appellant's claims was that she was wrongly denied benefits under the Ohio Works First program. (Trial court decision at 7.) The trial court concluded that R.C. 5101.35 was an insurmountable impediment to jurisdiction of the court. Id. R.C. 5101.35 sets forth the appeals process from a denial of assistance under the Ohio Works First program.
The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services receives federal funding for the administration of the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program ("TANF"). In Ohio, TANF is called Ohio Works First ("OWF"). In January 1998, appellant injured herself on the job. By April 1998, appellant could no longer work due to these injuries. She therefore applied for assistance through OWF in April 1998.
Under TANF, a state must reduce or terminate assistance to an individual who refuses to engage in work activities required under the law, subject to such good cause and other exceptions as the state may establish. Section 607(e), Title 42, U.S.Code. Pursuant to Section 608(b), Title 42, U.S.Code, Ohio has made it mandatory that a person wishing to receive assistance under OWF enter into a written self-sufficiency contract with the county department of job and family services. R.C. 5107.14.
This contract sets forth the rights and responsibilities of the applicant for and participant in OWF, including work responsibilities. Id.
According to the complaint, Washington County required appellant to sign a boilerplate self-sufficiency contract which provided no services or assistance appellant needed in order
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|