ORDERS:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The
above-captioned case is before this Court upon the request of Petitioner Sonyia
Hutchinson for a contested case hearing to challenge the decision of Respondent
South Carolina Budget and Control Board, South Carolina Retirement Systems
(SCRS), to deny her application for disability retirement benefits. By a Motion
to Dismiss filed on February 20, 2007, SCRS moved to dismiss this matter
because Petitioner failed to timely file her request for a contested case with
this Court, and thus failed to properly invoke this Court's jurisdiction.
Petitioner has not filed a response to the motion filed by SCRS. For the
reasons set forth below, I find that SCRS' motion to dismiss must be granted.
BACKGROUND
On
November 29, 2006, Respondent SCRS issued a Final Agency Determination to
Petitioner Sonyia Hutchinson, in which SCRS denied her application for
disability retirement benefits. On November 30, 2006, SCRS mailed the Final
Agency Determination to Petitioner along with a cover letter explaining how to
challenge the determination by filing a request for a contested case hearing
with the Administrative Law Court. See Resp't Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. #2.
The cover letter explained that the request must be filed with the Administrative Law Court within thirty days of Petitioner's receipt of the determination and
provided Petitioner with the address to the Court and a blank form for a
Request for a Contested Case Hearing, as well as information about the Court's
filing fee. See Resp't Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. #2. In particular, in the
section of the letter captioned "DEADLINE TO APPEAL," the cover
letter informed Petitioner that, "[i]n order to appeal the Final Agency
Determination, you must file the Request for a Contested Case Hearing with the Administrative
Law Court within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of this Final Agency
Determination," and that, "[i]f you fail to respond within this time
limitation, your right to appeal the Final Agency Determination will end."
Resp't Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. #2, at 2 (emphasis in original).
Petitioner
received the Final Agency Determination, with the cover letter and attached
documents, by certified mail on December 2, 2006. See Resp't Mot. to
Dismiss, Ex. #3. Subsequently, Petitioner filed a Request for a Contested Case
Hearing with this Court on February 5, 2007.
DISCUSSION
The
South Carolina Administrative Law Court is authorized to preside over
contested cases concerning disputes between a member of the South Carolina
retirement system and SCRS. See S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-23-600(B) (Supp. 2006),
9-21-60 (Supp. 2006). However, for this Court to hear such a contested case,
its jurisdiction must be properly invoked through a timely request for a
contested case. See Botany Bay Marina, Inc. v. Townsend, 296 S.C.
330, 372 S.E.2d 584 (1988) (holding that a party's failure to file an appeal of
a zoning decision within the statutory time period divested the board of
adjustment of jurisdiction to hear the appeal), overruled on other grounds
by Woodard v. Westvaco Corp., 319 S.C. 240, 460 S.E.2d 392 (1995); Burnett
v. S.C. State Highway Dep't, 252 S.C. 568, 167 S.E.2d 571 (1969) (holding
that a landowner's failure to timely appeal a condemnation decision by the
Highway Department deprived the reviewing court of jurisdiction to hear the
appeal); see also, e.g., Schaible Oil Co. v. N.J. Dep't
of Envtl. Prot., 586 A.2d 853, 855-56 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1991)
("The statutory time limit for requesting an adjudicatory hearing is
mandatory and jurisdictional[;].... enlargement of statutory time for appeal to
a state administrative agency lies solely within the power of the
Legislature... and not with the agency or the courts."); Lewis v. N.C.
Dep't of Human Res., 375 S.E.2d 712, 714 (N.C. Ct. App. 1989) ("The
right to appeal to an administrative agency is granted by statute, and
compliance with statutory provisions is necessary to sustain the
appeal."). In the instant matter, Petitioner failed to timely file her
request for a contested case to challenge SCRS' Final Agency Determination and,
therefore, failed to properly invoke this Court's jurisdiction.
Pursuant
to ALC Rule 11(C), a request for a contested case hearing to challenge a final
agency determination "must be filed and served within thirty (30) days
after actual or constructive notice of the agency's determination."
Similarly, Section 9-21-60 of the South Carolina Retirement Systems Claims
Procedures Act provides that a request for contested case review of a final
decision by SCRS must be filed "within thirty calendar days after the
claimant receives [SCRS'] final decision." S.C. Code Ann. § 9-21-60. In
the case at hand, Petitioner did not file a request for a contested case
hearing to challenge SCRS' denial of her application for disability retirement
benefits with this Court within thirty days after she received-and thus had
actual notice of-the denial on December 2, 2006. Petitioner did file a request
for a contested case with this Court on February 5, 2007 which was not timely.
Accordingly, this Court has no choice but to find that Petitioner failed to
properly invoke this Court's jurisdiction and to conclude that this matter must
be dismissed. However, in dismissing this case, this Court wishes to emphasize
that, while it is sympathetic to Petitioner's circumstances and realizes that
this dismissal may seem unduly harsh, it has an obligation to carefully examine
jurisdictional questions like that presented here, see, e.g., State
v. Johnston, 327 S.C. 435, 438, 489 S.E.2d 228, 230 (Ct. App. 1997), rev'd
on other grounds, 333 S.C. 459, 510 S.E.2d 423 (1999) (holding that
"it is the duty of the court to assure that it renders no decision in a
matter when it has no authority to act"), and is constrained from
extending the time for filing a request for a contested case or deeming an
untimely request to be timely because of the filing party's mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, see, e.g., Burnett,
252 S.C. at 570-71, 167 S.E.2d at 572.
ORDER
For
the reasons set forth above,
IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED that SCRS' motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the
above-captioned case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
AND
IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________________
John D. McLeod
Administrative
Law Judge
March 15, 2007
Columbia, South Carolina |
