On Wednesday a case was filed in the Northern District of Ohio by Rescue Mental Health & Addiction Services against the Mental Health & Recovery Services Board of Lucas County, as well as the director of that board both as an official and as an individual. The case is regarding breach of contract and retaliation regarding provisions of mental health services.
The plaintiff is a non-profit medical provider of mental health and addiction services in Toledo, the county seat of Lucas County, Ohio. The plaintiff, according to their complaint, provided community and incarcerated persons with mental health and addiction care pursuant to a contract with the defendant under the terms of Ohio Revised Code Chapter 340.
The code provides certain protections to these contracts to allow investment in the provision of mental health services without the facilities being subject to “capricious changes to provider contracts or the arbitrary termination of existing agreements.” The plaintiffs specifically note that “the Board or the provider – “shall” provide the other with 120 days’ written notice of proposed contract changes or notice of nonrenewal prior to the expiration of the existing contract, otherwise the contract renews. Even then, the statute goes further and mandates that the parties “shall collaborate and negotiate in good faith” over the 60 days following timely notice of changes or non-renewal in order to preserve services for persons in need.”
The plaintiffs argue that the board, in violation of the negotiation and notice periods required by the code, initiated a Request for Proposal (RFP). When the plaintiff objected to the RFP and the RFP was rescinded, the plaintiff alleges that the board retaliated and cancelled the plaintiff’s contract, again not complying with the notice or negotiation provisions in the contract. The plaintiff also alleges that in providing reasons for the termination, the board presented issues and complaints that had never been sent to the plaintiff, even though the complaints were years old, and no opportunity was given for rebuttal or for remediation.
Plaintiffs are suing for violation of procedural due process, violation of substantive due process, retaliation, violations of ORC Chapter 340, and breach of contract. Plaintiff is represented by Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease.
