ORDERS:
ORDER
GRIEVANCE NO. 0100-06
In
the above-captioned matter, Appellant Gena Beatty appeals the decision of
Respondent South Carolina Department of Corrections (Department) to deny her
grievance concerning her medical care by the Department. Based upon the record
presented in this appeal, I find that the Department’s decision to deny
Appellant’s grievance must be affirmed.
BACKGROUND
In
Step 1 and Step 2 Inmate Grievance Forms, submitted on May 24, 2006, and June 6,
2006, respectively, and identified as grievance number 0100-06, Appellant contends
that she is receiving inadequate medical care by the Department. In response
to Appellant’s grievance, the Department acknowledged that Appellant was being seen
by the Department’s Internist; however, the Department informed her that if she
wished to receive another doctor’s opinion, she could request an “Elective
Outside” form from the medical staff and pay to see another physician.
Therefore, by a final agency decision dated June 6, 2006, the Department denied
Appellant’s grievance. Appellant now appeals that denial before this Court.
DISCUSSION
This
appeal is before this Court pursuant to Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C.
354, 527 S.E.2d 742 (2000), Sullivan v. South Carolina Department of
Corrections, 355 S.C. 437, 586 S.E.2d 124 (2003), and Slezak v. South
Carolina Department of Corrections, 361 S.C. 327, 605 S.E.2d 506 (2004). Appellant
complains that an electrocardiogram (EKG) performed on her, after her arrival
at the correctional facility, indicated that she had a blockage. Although
Appellant is under the care of a doctor of internal medicine, she requested
that the Department send her outside of the correctional facility to see a
cardiologist. The record reflects that a medical professional familiar with
Appellant’s case indicated that the EKG test was negative and did not show that
Appellant had a blockage. Further, Appellant is permitted to see an “outside”
specialist at her own expense, which the Department will facilitate upon such a
request. Therefore, under the facts of this matter, I find that the Department’s
administrative decision is fully supported by the evidence in the record.
Further, there is nothing in the record to suggest that the Department’s
decision was arbitrary, capricious, or the result of personal bias or
prejudice. Accordingly, the Department’s decision in this matter should be affirmed.
ORDER
For
the reasons set forth above,
IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Department’s decision to deny Appellant’s
grievance is AFFIRMED.
AND
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
JOHN D.
GEATHERS
Administrative
Law Judge
1205 Pendleton
Street, Suite 224
Columbia, South
Carolina 29201-3731
April 10, 2007
Columbia, South Carolina
|
