# Bergdahl v. Ohio State Bd. of Psychology

> Ohio Court of Appeals · December 4, 1990 · 70 Ohio App. 3d 488

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3743098

## Case

- **Full name:** Bergdahl v. Ohio State Board of Psychology
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** December 4, 1990
- **Citations:** 70 Ohio App. 3d 488; 8 Ohio App. Unrep. 167; 591 N.E.2d 399; 1990 Ohio App. LEXIS 5297
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Stephenson
- **Judges:** Abele, Stephenson, Harsha
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3743098

## Opinion text

STEPHENSON, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion which overrules appellant's third assignment of error. As noted by the majority,
Lorms, supra,
sets forth the standard for reversal in cases of incomplete certified records. A finding for appellee was not required if the "omission 'in no way prejudiced [appellee] in the presentation of [her] appeal.'"
Lorms, supra
at 155;
Checker Realty v. Ohio Real Estate Commission
(1967), 41 Ohio App. 2d 37 . The reasoning for this standard is set forth in
Lorms,
at 155 as follows:
"To rule that appellant must be granted a finding in his favor even though the omissions in the record are not prejudicial would require this court to ignore the statutory phase 'ad
*169
versely affected,' to apply a 'technical and strict construction' of R.C. 119.12 which has been criticized in past cases; and to ignore that R.C. 119.12 is remedial in nature and should, therefore, be given a liberal construction designed to 'assist the parties in obtaining justice' under R.C. 1.11. (See
McKenzie v. Racing Comm.
[1966], 5 Ohio St. 2d 229, 231 , 215 N.E. 2d 397, 399 .)"
I believe, however, that the majority herein and the court below misapplied the above standard to the case
sub judice.
Certified copies of the minutes in question were not part of the original certified record and were not later submitted. The majority concludes that because the minutes were important to appellee's case, she was prejudiced by their absence What the majority fails to consider with respect to appellant's third assignment of error is the non-certified copy of the minutes which was attached to a memorandum filed before the board. The copy was obviously a rough draft of the minutes; however, if it contained everything the official copy contains, appellee would not be prejudiced because the pertinent information would be before the court below for consideration as it was before the Board. Under such circumstances the court below should not have entered a finding in favor of appellee.
Appellee contends, without any proof, that the official minutes may contain different information and that the draft minutes may-be incomplete It is impossible; from the record before us, to determine whether draft minutes are incomplete or contain different information. Therefore, I would remand to the trial court for a determination of whether the draft minutes are deficient, and, if so, whether the deficiencies are prejudicial to appellee.
See Milford v. Ohio State Racing Commission
(April 12, 1978), Hamilton App. No. C77003, unreported. Only in the situation where there are deficiencies prejudicial to appellee should a finding be entered in her favor on the certification issue

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3743098. Public record. Not legal advice.