11/12/2015

Ohio Supreme Court Refuses Appeal

on Important Indigent Disposition Case

              It took nearly three years and a trip to the Ohio Supreme Court, but Turner Funeral Home in Hillsboro, Ohio finally got paid for four indigent cremations that they performed in 2012 and 2013.  When Turner carried out the cremation of four deceased residents of Hillsboro, it billed the City of Hillsboro $4,670 for the cremations. Rather than pay for the cremations, Hillsboro’s City Council passed an ordinance declaring that it did not have the obligation to pay for indigent dispositions under Section 9.15 of the General Provisions of the Ohio Revised Code.

                Section 9.15 places the obligation to pay for indigent disposition on the municipality or township where the indigent had residency.  Hillsboro, seizing on the fact that it is a municipality fully encompassed within Liberty Township, tried to shift all responsibility for indigent disposition onto Liberty Township.  Furthermore, in its ordinance, Hillsboro provided that if it does have any responsibility for indigent disposition, its responsibility is capped at $750.

                Armed with its ordinance, Hillsboro rejected Tuner Funeral Home’s four invoices.  Ignoring the standard advice that “you can’t fight city hall,” Turner Funeral Home decided to file suit.  It challenged the validity of the Hillsboro Ordinance relying upon prior Ohio Attorney General Opinions which had held that the responsibility for the disposition of a deceased indigent who is a resident of both a municipality and a township falls to the municipality, not the township.

                After Turner Funeral Home won in Hillsboro Municipal Court, the City decided to appeal to the Ohio Fourth District Court of Appeals.  Hillsboro again raised the argument that Section 9.15 places the burden on the township, not the municipality, when the indigent was a resident of both.  It also added a second argument which was potentially very troublesome for many Ohio funeral homes.  It argued that the Home Rule Amendment in the Ohio Constitution gives municipalities the power of local self-government.  As such, it claimed that Section 9.15 was unconstitutional since it dictated to municipalities how it would carry out the disposition of its deceased residents.

                If the Fourth District Court of Appeals accepted Hillsboro’s argument, it would open the door for all Ohio municipalities to pass ordinances opting out of paying for indigent disposition or placing dollar caps on the responsibility to do so.  This would mean that in many Ohio cities, there would be no governmental obligation to pay for indigent dispositions.  Obviously, if the Ohio Fourth District Court of Appeals accepted the argument, many Ohio funeral homes would be adversely impacted. 

                Fortunately, the Ohio Fourth District Court of Appeals rejected that argument.  It held that Section 9.15 is a general law that is designed for the protection of all of Ohio’s citizens and, as such, local ordinances must yield to it.  In essence, the Ohio Fourth District Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of Section 9.15 and ruled that cities may not escape their responsibility for indigent disposition or place dollar caps on their obligations to pay for it.

                Rather than accepting the Appellate Court verdict and paying Tuner Funeral Home the $4,670 it owed, Hillsboro decided to hire a Columbus law firm to appeal the decision to the Ohio Supreme Court.  Briefs were filed by Hillsboro and a Memorandum in Opposition by Turner Funeral Home.  If the Supreme Court had accepted the appeal, it would re-open the issue of whether Section 9.15 was a valid exercise of state power over a municipality.

                On October 28, 2015, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a decision not to accept the appeal.  This ends the case. It is a victory for Turner Funeral Home as well as all Ohio funeral homes.  It validates that Section 9.15 is a general law of Ohio and cannot be sidestepped nor limited by Ohio cities under the Home Rule Amendment. 

                This case will be helpful the next time a city or township attempts to place dollar caps on its liability for indigent dispositions. While cities and townships have the option to select low cost providers for indigent disposition, they do not have the right to place a dollar cap on their obligation.  In other words, cities and townships have the obligation to pay whatever it costs to provide the disposition, although they have the option to select the lowest cost providers they can locate.

                If any OFDA member has a question regarding this article, please contact Scott Gilligan at 513-871-6332.