A Franklin County appellate panel has affirmed the Ohio Court of Claims’ dismissal of a Hilltop man’s suit alleging fraud and forgery — among other offenses — against the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services and the state Department of Medicaid.

The Tenth District Court of Appeals panel determined that the court’s dismissal of 61-year-old Tareq Jabr’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted was appropriate.

“In his complaint, Mr. Jabr generally accused ODJFS and ODM of criminal stalking, harassment, forgery and fraud in connection with the completion of a Medicaid-benefits form,” the three-judge panel wrote per curiam. “Mr. Jabr also alleged in his complaint that under ‘18 U.S.C. 1002, the penalty for false or forged documents is from five to 12 years in jail or prison plus fines.’

“ODJFS and ODM are both state agencies, as defined in R.C. 149.011(B). … The Court of Claims did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over any claims involving alleged criminal violations by ODJFS and ODM. Thus, the Court of Claims properly dismissed these claims under Civ.R. 12(B)(1).”

Jabr initiated the action against the two state agencies in the Court of Claims, seeking damages and other relief on Nov. 12, 2024, case summary provided.

In his complaint, he explained that the offenses stemmed from the completion of a Medicaid-benefits form and that he and his wife were harmed by the agencies’ actions.

On Dec. 12, 2024, the agencies moved to dismiss his complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted, summary detailed.

The Court of Claims granted the motion Dec. 31, 2024.

Jabr timely appealed, noting that the lower court was provided proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the agencies’ actions.

He accused the Court of Claims of arbitrarily dismissing his complaint without any basis or deciding the case on its merits.

“A trial court must grant a Civ.R. 12(B)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction if the complaint fails to raise a cause of action that can be considered by the forum,” the panel continued. “… The Court of Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction and has exclusive, original jurisdiction over only civil actions against the state specifically permitted by the waiver of immunity set forth in R.C. 2743.02, (which) limits actions brought in the Court of Claims to those which could be brought between private parties.”

Criminal statutes, absent a specific provision to the contrary, generally do not create a private cause of action, the decision provided. Rather, they effect a right of prosecution by the state.

“The Court of Claims likewise lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to determine whether or not a crime has occurred for the purpose of awarding civil penalties for criminal violations of state statute,” the decision continued.

The appellate panel noted that the lower court construed Jabr’s complaint as also alleging a civil fraud claim after determining it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to hear any of the criminal claims.

“To prevail on a claim of civil fraud, a plaintiff must demonstrate all of the following: a representation or, where there is a duty to disclose, concealment of a fact, which is material to the transaction at hand, made falsely, with knowledge of its falsity, or with such utter disregard and recklessness as to whether it is true or false that knowledge may be inferred, with the intent of misleading another into relying on it; justifiable reliance on the representation or concealment; and a resulting injury proximately caused by the reliance,” the judges wrote.

They stressed that the circumstances of the fraudulent act must be stated with particularity.

“Typically, the particularity required to sufficiently plead a civil fraud claim includes the time, place and content of the false representation; the fact represented; the individual who made the representation; and the nature of what was obtained or given as a consequence of the fraud,” the decision continued.

The appellate panel determined that Jabr alleged “some unspecified employees” at the agencies forged paperwork related to a form for

Medicaid benefits.

“… Other than claiming that paperwork was forged, Mr. Jabr does not plead any of the elements of fraud with particularity, as required by Civ.R. 9(B),” the panel wrote. “Consequently, Mr. Jabr’s complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted for civil fraud. For this reason, we conclude the trial court properly granted the departments’ motion to dismiss this claim pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6).”

Tenth District judges Laurel Beatty Blunt, Michael Mentel and Carly Edelstein comprised the members of the panel.