En Banc Orders
McNeil v. S.C.
Department of Corrections (00-ALJ-04-00336-AP)
In this inmate grievance appeal, the Court analyzed whether it had subject matter jurisdiction over an inmate's
allegation of an Eighth Amendment violation by the Department of
Corrections. The Court concluded its appellate jurisdiction under
Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742 (2000), was limited to either:
(1) cases in which an inmate contends that prison officials have erroneously
calculated his sentence, sentence-related credits, or custody status; or (2)
cases in which the Department has taken an inmate's state-created liberty interest
as punishment in a major disciplinary hearing. In
Sullivan v. S.C. Department of
Corrections, 355 S.C. 437, 586 S.E.2d 124 (2003), the Supreme Court
held that although much of the analysis in
McNeil is accurate,
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S.
539 (1974), requires minimal due
process for state-created liberty interests, which are not necessarily
limited to sentence credit issues and major disciplinary decisions.
Corporation, et al. v. S.C. Department of Revenue (03-ALJ-17-0337-CC)
Here, the Court analyzed whether the
Department of Revenue had the authority to issue temporary permits allowing
the off-premise sale of beer and wine on Sundays in the City of Greenville.
The Court concluded that prior to June 25, 2003, the effective date of Act
70 of 2003, the Department had the authority to issue seven-day permits
within the City of Greenville. However, as a result of the City's June
13, 2000 referendum, the Department was prohibited from issuing seven-day
permits within the city effective June 25, 2003.
Anderson v. S.C.
Budget and Control Board, S.C. Retirement Systems (06-ALJ-30-0008-CC)
case, the Court analyzed whether a member of the
Retirement Systems is entitled to have her application for disability
retirement benefits considered, even though the application was filed after
her employment terminated, so long as her disability began while she was "in
service." The Court concluded that the words "member in service," as
used in Section 9-1-1540, and as applied to an employee seeking disability
retirement benefits, plainly mean a person having the status of an employee
by virtue of a contract of employment that is in effect at the time the
application for disability benefits is filed. In
Lazicki-Thomas v. S.C. Budget and
Control Board, 378 S.C. 72, 661 S.E.2d 374 (2008), the Supreme Court
affirmed this Court's analysis and application of the
Anderson en banc
S.C. Department of
Motor Vehicles v. Cain (06-ALJ-21-0790-AP)
In this case, the Court analyzed whether the
DMVH hearing officers must comply with the Department's policy, setting
forth conditions that must be met in order for a Section 56-1-1090(c)
suspension reduction to be granted. The Court concluded that because the Department
had not promulgated Policy VS-001 as a regulation, DMVH hearing officers
were not required to treat it as anything more than a non-binding guideline.
Thus, a DMVH hearing officer's failure to follow the conditions set forth in
the policy when granting a suspension reduction does not per se constitute reversible error.