Hawkins v. Marion Correctional Institute (1990), 62 Ohio App.3d 863; cert denied 55 Ohio St.3d 705. An order of the state personnel board of review adopting examiner's recommendation that the employee be removed was not based on highly prejudicial, inadmissible evidence, absent showing in record that examiner relied on knowledge of administration of polygraph tests or results thereof; record of examiner's actions on motion in limine, on motion to strike reference to polygraph examination from removal order and admonishment of counsel showed that he understood limitations on that evidence and requirements that fact finder not consider it.

Erie Care Center, Inc. v. Ackerman (1982), 5 Ohio App.3d 102. In conducting an adjudication hearing as required by R.C. 119.01 to 119.13, an administrative agency is not required to formulate its own findings of fact but rather such agency must approve, modify or disapprove the recommendations of the referee or examiner.

Laughlin v. Ohio Dept. of Administrative Services (1988), 47 Ohio Misc.2d 1. It is not essential that a person who prepares findings and recommendations in an administrative proceeding hears the evidence if he reviews and examines the record of the proceeding.

Hall v. Miami County Board of Commissioners (Nov. 20, 1991), Miami App. No. 90-CA-57, unreported, 1991 WL 244683. Where the state personnel board of review's opinion states only that it is following its own unarticulated "policy" in determining that the discipline imposed was too harsh, it has sufficiently, although tersely, articulated its reasons for rejecting its administrative law judge's recommendation.

Wright v. Butler County Sheriff (Sept. 4, 1990), Butler App. No. CA89-11-154, unreported, 1990 WL 127208. Absent defects in the findings of fact, a decision of the state personnel board of review will not be rendered invalid simply because it did not review the transcript of the hearing before altering the administrative law judge's recommendation.

Jamail v. Ohio Dept. of Taxation (May 31, 1990), Guernsey App. No. 89-CA-45, unreported, 1990 WL 78879. Where the state personnel board of review adopts the administrative law judge's findings of fact but reaches a different conclusion and the conclusion is a logical one that flows from the findings, a trial court may properly affirm the board's order.

Bontrager v. Cambridge Mental Health Center (May 15, 1990), Guernsey App. No. 89-CA-48, unreported, 1990 WL 70062. Where the administrative law judge fails to specifically state in his report "appellant is guilty of failure of good behavior," the board sub silentio finds appellant guilty of such failure when it affirms a decision order which specifically finds "failure of good behavior"; where the employee admits the truth of the charges against him, it follows that the fact finder, in applying the sanction, found the facts to be as admitted.

Wilson v. State Personnel Board of Review (Apr. 24, 1985), Mahoning App. No. 84-CA-43, unreported, 1985 WL 10427. Where the record indicates that there was no legally significant reason for the state personnel board of review to make a decision without contradicting evidence as found by their referee, the decision of the reviewing common pleas court to reverse the board's order is proper. View Court of Appeals Decision | View SPBR Order

Pushay v. Walter (Sept. 20, 1984), Franklin App. No. 83AP-1103, unreported. R.C. 119.09 does not require an agency to accept the findings of fact of its referee or examiner; all that is required is that the agency include within the record of its proceedings its reasons for rejecting the referee's recommendation. View Court of Appeals Decision

Pushay v. Walter (Sept. 20, 1984), Franklin App. No. 83AP-1103, unreported. An agency has fulfilled the requirement of R.C. 119.09, that it include in the record of its proceedings the reasons for its modification or disapproval of the recommendation of its referee or examiner, by merely noting that a party's objections were "well taken," where those objections were included in the record of the proceedings. View Court of Appeals Decision

Butler County Care Facility v. Chalfant (Dec. 20, 1995), Butler Co., No. CV95-05-0806, unreported. While the state personnel board of review has the ultimate authority to rule on cases before it, including the right to reject or modify the conclusions and recommendations of its hearing examiners, this cannot be done casually or without good reason. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Butler County Care Facility v. Chalfant (Dec. 20, 1995), Butler Co., No. CV95-05-0806, unreported. The state personnel board of review abuses its discretion when it sets aside the recommendation of the hearing examiner in direct disregard of that recommendation, and in the absence of any objection or any opportunity for the "losing" party to respond on the issue. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Franklin County Sheriff v. Williams (Jan. 7, 1991), Franklin Co., No. 90CVF-03-1879, unreported. Where there is no indication that the state personnel board of review reviewed the record of the evidentiary hearing and there is no evidence to support its modification of the administrative law judge's recommendation, the board's decision is inconsistent with the evidentiary record and must be reversed by a reviewing court. View Common Pleas Decision

Hardin County Treasurer v. Garman (Dec. 17, 1990), Hardin Co., No. 90-ADM-202, unreported. R.C. 119.09 provides that the recommendation of a hearing officer or referee may be approved, modified or disapproved by the state personnel board of review; clearly, therefore, the hearing officer is an agent of the board, and his report is entirely subservient to their ultimate action.