COLUMBUS, Ohio (WSYX) — Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost has filed a lawsuit against an ambulance company accused of leaving patients with unexpected medical transport bills by failing to disclose that it was out of network.

The lawsuit alleges Superior Air-Ground Ambulance Service of Ohio did not inform patients before transporting them between medical facilities that it is out of network for all private health insurers, as required by state law.

“Patients being transferred between hospitals have enough to worry about without getting hit with unexpected bills weeks later,” Yost said. “Consumers deserve to know when a company is out of network and what costs they may face before services are provided.”

The lawsuit alleges four violations of Ohio’s Consumer Sales Practices Act: failing to inform consumers of the right to receive an estimate; billing for out-of-network care after insurance reimbursement; making false or misleading statements regarding cost; and requiring consumers to enter a transaction on terms that the company knew were substantially one-sided.

Yost’s office said it has received complaints from more than 20 people transported by Superior between July 2024 and June 2026 who were billed hundreds or thousands of dollars for the transportation.

According to the lawsuit, people received treatment at hospitals within their insurance networks when physicians ordered ambulance transportation to another in-network facility. The hospitals arranged the transportation with Superior, but patients were not informed of Superior’s out-of-network status.

The Ohio Attorney General’s Office also alleges Superior failed to provide consumers with estimated transportation costs before service, as required in Ohio, and instead presented payment authorization forms after the transports.

The lawsuit seeks restitution for affected consumers, along with civil penalties and injunctive relief.

ABC 6 has reached out to Superior and is awaiting a reply.

ABC 6 has reached out to XXX and is awaiting a reply.ABC 6 has reached out to XXX and is awaiting a reply.

AB

An Ohio common pleas court ruled that a man with two misdemeanors and one felony domestic violence conviction couldn’t have his right to bear arms restored. the Supreme Court disagreed.

Advertisement

Ray Marcano is a Columbus Dispatch contributing columnist.

A bill working its way through the Ohio House would create a repeat domestic violence offender registry that’s patterned after Tennessee’s recently passed law.

Now, the bill’s proponents should go further and include a measure that prohibits anyone convicted of domestic violence from owning a firearm or getting those rights restored.

This issue surfaced after the Allen County Court of Common Pleas ruled that, under federal law, a man convicted of two misdemeanors and one felony count of domestic violence couldn’t have his right to bear arms restored.

An appeals court and now the Supreme Court disagreed, and the case is heading back to Allen County, which will decide whether the man, Patrick Heffley, can get his guns back.

The laws that govern how a citizen can lose the right to possess firearms and the appeals process for regaining that right are complicated.

They shouldn’t be, at least not in Ohio.

Just say no.

Flaw in our law must be fixed

Under federal law, anyone convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor charge can’t possess a firearm.  But Ohio law doesn’t automatically take away guns in these cases, so courts decide whether to restore rights.

More: Ohio Supreme Court says people convicted of domestic violence can get guns back

That shouldn’t be.

Currently, judges determine whether an offender has been reformed and is likely to continue leading a law-abiding life. Maybe the person has turned over a new leaf and has become a respected, productive community member. That would be great.

Just say no.

Those are three easy words, especially since 157 people died as a result of domestic violence in the 12 months ending June 2025, the most in a decade, according to the Ohio Domestic Violence Network.

More than eight in 10 deaths involved a firearm, showing there’s no way someone convicted of domestic violence should own a gun, even if the offense happened decades ago.

So, this gives the bill’s sponsors an opportunity to fix a flaw in the law.

I know the arguments that would justify inaction. There’s no guarantee that mirroring federal law will stop deaths here. We’re a society of second chances and should embrace those who have repented.

That’s true, but society also has laws with consequences for disobeying them. One should be straightforward.

If you beat up your partner in an act of violence, you lose the ability to own a weapon that can be used to perpetrate more violence.

Ohio’s proposed law, House Bill 846, by Rep. Phil Plummer, R-Butler Twp., and Rep. Cecil Thomas, D-Cincinnati, would mandate repeat offenders register for anywhere for two to 10 years with their name, photo, date of birth and location.

Plummer and Thomas should add to their bill and ban these offenders from having firearms.

That should be.

Ray Marcano is a Columbus Dispatch contributing columnist. The longtime journalist is the former national president of the Society of Professional Journalists, a two-time Pulitzer juror, and a Fulbright fellow.

PORTSMOUTH, Ohio (WCHS) — The Ohio Department of Behavioral Health is cracking down on fraud and abuse within its system, announcing a temporary freeze on new behavioral health and rehabilitation provider applications statewide.

Officials said the move comes as the state works to rein in oversight issues in a rapidly expanding addiction recovery industry.

Across Ohio, there are thousands of addiction recovery facilities. While many are helping people overcome addiction, state leaders said others are falling short.

“We have more waste and abuse,” Rep. Justin Pizzulli, R-Scioto, said. “The recovery system grew so quickly that our oversight never caught up.”

Pizzulli said that is now beginning to change. The Department of Behavioral Health has implemented a temporary freeze on new providers while developing a stricter review process for incoming applications. The goal is to ensure facilities meet consistent standards before being approved.

Part of the concern stems from questionable billing practices uncovered in some facilities.

“We have a facility that was billing Medicaid in Portsmouth for activities such as pickleball, nap times, hanging Christmas lights and even aromatherapy and other recreational services,” Pizzulli said. “Taxpayers are very confused.”

Officials said the lack of consistent standards has allowed wide variation in the quality of care being offered.

“There’s an issue because there’s a lot out there and there are different degrees of effectiveness,” Pizzulli said.

Some in the treatment community support the crackdown. Kevin Dennis, CEO of Field of Hope, an addiction recovery facility in Gallia County, said increased oversight will ultimately strengthen the system and improve outcomes for patients.

“One of the secrets to success is keeping the rehabilitation of the client first and foremost,” Dennis said. “That’s what’s important and I’m not sure everybody does that.”

State leaders said the new approach will focus on accountability and measurable results.

“This is going to begin a more thorough review process for new behavioral health and rehab provider applications,” Pizzulli said.

One of the key goals is to create clear standards to determine whether facilities are effective and using taxpayer money appropriately. The application freeze is expected to last about one year.