This
matter is before the Administrative Law Court (ALC or Court) upon the motion
of Respondent South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation,
South Carolina Contractors’ Licensing Board (Board) to dismiss this appeal on
the grounds that Appellant lacks standing to bring this appeal and that this
appeal is not timely. For the following reasons, the motion is granted and
this matter is hereby dismissed.
On
September 20, 2005, Appellant filed a written complaint with the Board.
Appellant requested the Board inform him whether it had or was going to
“investigate the matter, and if so, the results of the investigation, and the
sanctions that are imposed.” On October 5, 2005, Joe Chandler, Chairman of the
Board, sent a letter to Appellant notifying him that after reviewing his
correspondence and discussing it with the Board’s legal representative, the
Board determined that no action was required.
Subsequently,
on November 15, 2005, Appellant filed an appeal with this Court, alleging that
the Board’s dismissal of his complaint was arbitrary and capricious, and
invalid. Appellant asked that the matter be remanded to the Board for further
action, and that it require the Board to reimburse him for his costs and
attorneys fees.
On
November 23, 2005, the Board filed a Motion to Dismiss, alleging that Appellant’s
appeal was not timely filed and that Appellant lacks standing to file an appeal
as he was not a party to a contested case action nor is he appealing a final
order from a contested case proceeding.
DISCUSSION
A
threshold question in every case is whether the court has subject matter
jurisdiction over the controversy before it. “Subject matter jurisdiction of a
court depends upon the authority granted to the court by the constitution and
laws of the state.” Paschal
v. Causey,
309 S.C. 206, 209, 420 S.E.2d 863, 865 (Ct. App.1992). It “refers to the
court’s power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the
proceedings in question belong.” Bardoon Properties, NV v.
Eidolon Corporation, et al; 326 S.C. 166, 169, 485 S.E.2d 371, 372 (1997). “Lack of subject matter
jurisdiction can be raised at any time, can be raised for the first time on
appeal, and can be raised sua sponte by the court.” Lake v. Reeder Const. Co., 330 S.C. 242, 248, 498 S.E.2d 650, 653 (Ct. App.1998).
As
a statutory court, the Administrative Law Court has only such powers as have
been conferred upon it by law. See S.C. Code Ann. §1-23-500 (2005). S.C.
Code Ann. § 1-23-600(D)(2005) grants jurisdiction to the ALC to “preside over
all hearings of appeals from final decisions of contested cases before
professional and occupational licensing boards or commissions within the
Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation…pursuant to Section 1-23-380.”
Section 1-23-380(A)(2005), which is applicable to appeals heard by an
administrative law judge, provides that “[a] party who has exhausted all
administrative remedies available within the agency and who is aggrieved by a
final decision in a contested case is entitled to . . . review. . . .” (emphasis
added). Thus, for Appellant to have standing to bring this appeal, he must
have been a “party” to a contested case proceeding. “Party” is defined in the
Administrative Procedures Act as “each person or agency named or admitted as a
party, or properly seeking and entitled as of right to be admitted as a party.
. . .” S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-310(5) (2005).
It
is uncontroverted that the Board has not held a contested case hearing
concerning Appellant’s allegations of misconduct, and, therefore, has not
issued a final order. Thus, Appellant has not been a party in any contested case
proceeding held by the Board. Accordingly, since no contested case hearing has
been held by the Board nor any final order issued, this Court does not have
jurisdiction to hear this appeal.
The
purpose of the various professional and occupational licensing boards within
the Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation is to protect the public at
large through the regulation of professional and occupational licensees. S.C.
Code Ann. § 40-1-40 (Supp. 2004). In furtherance of this purpose, each Board
is given the power to determine the eligibility of applicants for licensure, to
establish criteria for licensure, and to discipline licensees for violations of
their respective practice acts. S.C. Code Ann. § 40-1-70 (Supp. 2004). Upon
receiving a complaint from any person, the Board has the authority to
investigate the complaint. It is also implicit that the Board may, in its
discretion, dismiss the complaint or conduct a hearing on the charges. See S.C. Code Ann. §§ 40-1-90, 40-11-80 and 40-11-90 (Supp. 2004). There is no
right of review from a decision to dismiss a complaint without a hearing, and
there is no provision within the applicable statutes which entitles the
complainant to notice of disciplinary proceedings, to become a party to any
disciplinary proceedings or to appeal final decisions of the Board. The only
person given the right to appeal the Board’s decision is the person whose
license is affected by the decision. See S.C. Code Ann. § 40-1-160 and
40-11-160 (Supp. 2004). A complainant has no standing to contest the punishment,
or lack of punishment, imposed by the Board. See Eikelberger v.
Nevada State Board of Accountancy, 91 Nev. 98, 431 P.2d 853 (1975)
(complainant had no standing to appeal the Board’s disciplinary decision since
he was not an aggrieved party within the meaning of the applicable procedural
statute). Accordingly, this matter must be dismissed.
ORDER
For
all the foregoing reasons,
IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Board’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and
this matter is DISMISSED.
AND
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_____________________________
Marvin F.
Kittrell
Chief Administrative
Law Judge
December 14, 2005
Columbia, South Carolina