ORDERS:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
In
the above-captioned matter, the South Carolina Department of Health and Human
Services (Department) issued a final agency determination on November 15, 2006
in regards to Appellant’s Medicaid claim. The Department determined that Appellant
was not eligible for Medicaid benefits due to his receipt of income beyond the
limits specified under the Aged, Blind, or Disabled program of Medicaid. On
March 2, 2007, the Department filed a Motion to Dismiss with the South Carolina
Administrative Law Court (“ALC” or “Court”) alleging that Appellant’s Notice of
Appeal is “insufficient” and thus failed to properly invoke the jurisdiction of
the ALC. (Department’s Motion to Dismiss at 1). As of the date of this Order,
Appellant has not responded to the Department’s Motion to Dismiss nor has he filed
an appellate brief with this Court to amend, supplement, or modify his grounds
for appeal.
Appellant’s
Notice of Appeal (a two-page letter filed December 11, 2006) neither contains a
cognizable ground for appeal to this tribunal nor does it set forth a specific
reason for the reversal or modification of the Department’s final determination
that falls within the grounds for appeal enumerated in Section 1-23-380(5) of
the Administrative Procedures Act. S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-360(5) (Supp. 2006).
Rather, Appellant refers to his health issues and difficult financial situation
as the basis for appealing the Department’s decision. While this Court is
sympathetic to Appellant’s situation, Appellant has failed to state a
particular error of law or fact in his Notice of Appeal for this tribunal to
review, as required by ALC Rule 33(B). ALC Rule 33 provides that:
The notice [of
appeal] . . . shall contain the following information: . . . a general
statement of the grounds for appeal as provided in S.C. Code Ann. §
1-23-380(A)(6). The grounds for appeal may be amended, supplemented or
modified in the statement of issues in the brief required by Rule 37(B)(1).
ALC Rule 33
(emphasis added). Therefore, this appeal must be dismissed as this Court is
limited in granting or denying relief to the Appellant in the instant matter as
he has not properly stated his grounds for appeal of the Department’s decision
regarding his Medicaid claim.
This
tribunal is mindful of the difficulties facing pro se litigants
and its duty to assist them to ensure fairness. See ALC Rule 38 and
accompanying note. This tribunal is also aware that appellate courts will
occasionally hear an appeal despite poorly-stated grounds for appeal if the
court is able to readily determine the issue to be reviewed and the appeal
appears to have merit. See, e.g., Sandel v. Cousins, 266 S.C.19,
221 S.E.2d 111 (1975). Nonetheless, where, as here, the appellant does not set
forth any articulable grounds for appeal, and no grounds, meritorious or
otherwise, readily appear to the reviewing court, an appellate tribunal has
little choice but to dismiss the appeal. See, e.g., Kiawah Prop.
Owners Group v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of South Carolina, 359 S.C. 105, 113, 597
S.E.2d 145, 149 (2004) (“[A] petition . . . pursuant to the Administrative
Procedures Act (APA) must direct the Court’s attention to the abuse allegedly
committed below, including a distinct and specific statement of the rulings of
which appellant complains.” (quoting Pringle v. Builders Transp., 298
S.C. 494, 495, 381 S.E.2d 731, 732 (1989))); Smith v. South Carolina Dep’t
of Social Services, 284 S.C. 469, 471, 327 S.E.2d 348, 349 (1985) (“[A]
petition must include all that is necessary to enable the appellant court to
decide whether the ruling complained of was erroneous.” (citing 4 Am.Jr.2d, Appeal
and Error, § 430 (1962))); Solley v. Weaver, 247 S.C. 129, 131, 146
S.E.2d 164, 165 (1966) (“We have held in many cases that every ground of appeal
ought to be so distinctly stated that the Court may at once see the point which
it is called upon to decide without having to ‘grope in the dark’ to ascertain
the precise point at issue.”).
IT
IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the above-captioned appeal is DISMISSED pursuant to ALC Rule 38 for Appellant’s failure to state a cognizable ground
for appeal.
AND
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
1205
Pendleton Street, Suite 224
Columbia,
South Carolina 29201-3731
March 21, 2007
Columbia, South
Carolina |
