ORDERS:
ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter is before the Administrative Law Judge Division pursuant to the appeal of Sherry
L. Stafford from a decision of the Fair Hearing Committee of the South Carolina Department of
Social Services (DSS), which reduced Appellant's welfare benefits on the grounds that she failed
to cooperate with the requirements of the Family Independence ("FI") Program. A hearing was
conducted on June 17, 1998, at the Anderson County Courthouse, in Anderson, South Carolina, at
which time the parties presented oral arguments. For the reasons stated herein, the decision of the
Fair Hearing Committee is affirmed.
The Appellant received a FI stipend and food stamps for herself and her three children. The
Appellant was required to make certain job contacts and to complete Job Club and Family Skills
classes, which were required as conditions to receiving the FI stipend. Although she was given
numerous opportunities, she failed to complete either assignment. Accordingly, the agency reduced
the Appellant's benefits, alleging she had failed to comply with the requirements of the FI program.
The Appellant requested a fair hearing which was held on December 16, 1997. After hearing
testimony from the Appellant and DSS representatives assigned to her case, the DSS Fair Hearing
Committee issued a Final Administrative Decision on January 28, 1998. The Fair Hearing
Committee determined that the Appellant failed to comply with the Family Independence program
by failing to provide proof of job contacts and failing to participate in numerous required training
classes. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
In reviewing the findings and conclusions of an agency, the Administrative Law Judge is
limited to determining whether substantial rights of the Appellant have been prejudiced because the
administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are clearly erroneous in view of the
reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record, or the decision is arbitrary or
capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. S.C.
Code Ann. § 1-23-380(A)(6)(e)-(f) (Supp. 1997). In other words, the DSS decision may only be set
aside if unsupported by "substantial evidence."
"Substantial evidence" is not a mere scintilla of evidence nor the evidence viewed
blindly from one side of the case, but is evidence which, considering the record as a
whole, would allow reasonable minds to reach the conclusion that the administrative
agency reached or must have reached in order to justify its action.
Lark v. Bi-Lo, Inc., 276 S.C. 130, 276 S.E.2d 304, 306 (1981).
In this case, the Fair Hearing Committee concluded that the Department acted properly in
determining that Appellant's AFDC benefits were properly revoked. Substantial evidence in the
record supports that determination. The Appellant's failure to provide proof of job contacts and
failure to participate in numerous required classes are well documented by records in the DSS file,
as well as by the testimony of DSS caseworkers and of the Appellant.
Given the finding that the Appellant had failed to comply with the program requirements, the
Fair Hearing Committee correctly determined that her FI benefits must be canceled. S.C. Code Ann.
§ 43-5-1125(A)(1) (Supp. 1997). The Appellant's excuses for not complying with the FI program
do not amount to legal good cause under S.C. Code Ann. § 43-5-1125(A). The Appellant
complained that headaches and Lupus prevented her from complying with the program; however,
she failed to return to DSS doctor's forms as documentation. Although the Appellant documented
that she was pregnant, the record before the Fair Hearing Committee did not indicate that she was
at least six month's pregnant. See S.C. Code Ann. § 43-5-1125(B)(2). The Appellant's personal
belief that the courses were unnecessary for her likewise does not qualify as good cause.
Substantial evidence of the Appellant's failure to participate in the FI program without good
cause supports the Final Administrative Decision. Reasonable minds could have reached the same
conclusion of the Fair Hearing Committee in order to justify its action.
ORDER
Based upon the record and the applicable law, the Order of the DSS Fair Hearing Committee
is AFFIRMED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
___________________________________
STEPHEN P. BATES
Administrative Law Judge
July 10, 1998
Columbia, South Carolina |