How the Ohio Supreme Court Put a Check on DODD’s Power

If you’ve ever tried to challenge a rule or policy from a state agency like the Ohio Department of Developmental Disabilities (DODD), you may have been told, “That’s just how the agency interprets the law.” For a long time, Ohio courts usually went along with that. But a recent Ohio Supreme Court decision changed the game.

That decision is called TWISM Enterprises, LLC v. State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Surveyors, or just “Twism” for short. It’s a legal case, but its impact is very real for families—especially those dealing with complicated systems like DODD.

So let’s break it down.

The Old Way: Courts Usually Agreed with the Agency

Before Twism, if someone sued a state agency like DODD, arguing that the agency was misinterpreting the law, Ohio courts would typically defer to the agency’s interpretation—even if it wasn’t the best interpretation. As long as the agency’s take on the law was “reasonable,” the court would say, “Well, they’re the experts. We’ll go with it.” This was called “administrative deference.”

That meant DODD could interpret vague or confusing laws in ways that suited them—and if you disagreed, it was very hard to get a judge to rule in your favor.

What Twism Changed

In 2022, the Ohio Supreme Court said no more automatic deference.

In Twism, the Court ruled that judges—not agencies like DODD—are responsible for saying what the law means. DODD can still offer its opinions, and courts may consider those opinions. But courts don’t have to accept DODD’s view automatically.

This new standard is called independent judicial judgment. Judges now must look at the law with fresh eyes and come to their own conclusions, rather than giving automatic weight to whatever an agency like DODD says.

Example: Mandatory Unannounced Home Inspections Policy

Here’s one real-world example currently playing out in the Ohio Supreme Court: DODD made up a policy that all Medicaid waiver recipients must submit to surprise home inspections performed by service and support administrators when those SSAs show up unannounced at any time of the day. We looked at all the related laws and found out that this policy goes against the law, so we sued to end it. DODD responded, claiming the administrative rule below gives the county board SSAs the authority to conduct unannounced home inspections of homes where all Medicaid waiver recipients live:

OAC 5123-4-02 (F)(2)(q)(ii) The scope, type, and frequency of reviews will be specified in the individual service plan and include, but are not limited to:

(a) Face-to-face visits, occurring at a time and place convenient for the individual, at least annually or more frequently as needed by the individual; and

(b) Contact via phone, email, or other appropriate means as needed.

We interpret this to mean that face-to-face visits must occur at a time and place convenient for the individual, and that mandatory unannounced home inspections at random times can hardly be considered convenient. DODD disagrees. They claim that face-to-face visits do not need to occur at a time and place convenient to the individual because mandatory unannounced home inspections are an “other appropriate means.” It’s obvious that the term “other appropriate means” refers to contacts similar to phone or email, such as Zoom, FaceTime, or Skype, and that the folks who wrote this rule didn’t want to mention Zoom, FaceTime, Skype, etc., by name because those platforms tend to change ownership or go out of business. (In fact, Skype just recently went defunct.)

Before the Twism decision, the Court might give deference to DODD.

But now, because of Twism, the Court must read the law for itself and decide:

Does the law actually say DODD can authorize mandatory unannounced home inspections?

Does the law say it’s OK to conduct surprise home inspections that are inconvenient and scary for people with developmental disabilities?

If not, the Court can reject DODD’s interpretation—even if DODD still believes it’s reasonable.

Example: Parent Replacement Policy

In 2024, DODD announced a new “guidance” that county boards need to try to replace parent care workers with strangers every 4-6 months. Like the unannounced home inspections, this is also not in the law. Using the Twism decision, we sued to stop this practice. DODD filed a motion to dismiss our case, but the Supreme Court of Ohio denied DODD’s motion. As the case wore on, DODD decided to change its replacement policy from “4-6 months” to “annually.” This effectively ended the case because the timeframe we challenged – 4 to 6 months – was no longer an issue. While 12 months is clearly better than 4 months, these parent replacements are still not part of any Ohio law. We can challenge the policy again thanks to the Twism decision.

Why This Matters

Agencies like DODD use “guidance” and odd interpretations of the law to grab too much power over the daily lives of people with developmental disabilities and their families. They create rules, issue guidance, and make decisions that could violate your loved one’s rights.

Before Twism, agencies like DODD had the last word.

Now, the courts do.

That means people with developmental disabilities have a better shot at challenging unfair or overreaching policies—especially when government agencies stretch the law beyond what it clearly states, such as trying to say that face-to-face visits don’t have to occur “at a time and place convenient for the individual” or that parent care workers need to be replaced with strangers every so often.

A Powerful Tool for Advocacy

Twism doesn’t guarantee a win in court. But it does level the playing field. If you’re working with a lawyer to challenge one of DODD’s “guidance” documents, make sure your lawyer knows about Twism. It could make all the difference in how your case is argued—and how it’s decided.

Summary:

Ohio courts no longer have to go along with whatever DODD says the law means. Judges now have the power to read the law for themselves and make up their own minds. That’s a big win for fairness, transparency, and people with developmental disabilities.