Legal Opinion

Cotterman v. Ohio Department of Public Welfare

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 26, 1986No. 86-385PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLocher, J.

The issue presented for review is whether the presumption set forth by Ohio Adm. Code 5101:3-50-22(C) may be rebutted as to all sample cases based upon the successful rebuttal of a number of sample cases. For the reasons to follow, we reject appellant’s arguments and hold that the presumption found in Ohio Adm. Code 5101:3-50-22(C) applies separately to each sample case contained in a valid report of examination.

Appellant contends that Ohio Adm. Code 5101:3-50-22(C) “* * * creates a rebuttable presumption that the contents of an ROE are valid, which presumption is rebutted if it is proven…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Del Vecchio v. BowersSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
  2. Evans v. National Life & Accident InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1986

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Forbes v. Midwest Air Charter, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1999
  2. Physician's Ambulance Serv., Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of MedicaidOhio Court of Appeals · 2020
  3. Forbes v. Midwest Air Charter, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1999
  4. Meadowwood Nursing Fac. v. Oh J F Ser., Unpublished Decision (3-22-2005)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2005

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API