ORDERS:
ORDER
GRIEVANCE NO. RCI 0009-06
In
the above-captioned matter, Appellant Charles Robinson appeals the decision of
Respondent South Carolina Department of Corrections (Department) to deny his
grievance concerning his disciplinary conviction on December 14, 2005, for
failure to provide a urine specimen within a specific timeframe, as determined by
Department policy guidelines. Based upon the record presented in this appeal,
I find that Appellant’s disciplinary conviction in the instant matter must be reversed.
BACKGROUND
In
Step 1 and Step 2 Inmate Grievance Forms, submitted on December 24, 2006, and May
18, 2006, respectively, and identified as grievance number RCI 0009-06,
Appellant challenges his disciplinary conviction on December 14, 2005.
Specifically, Appellant was convicted for the Use or Possession of Narcotics,
Marijuana or Unauthorized Drugs, Including Prescription Drugs or Inhalants
(9.03), as contained in SCDC Policy Op-22.14, Inmate Disciplinary System. In
response to Appellant’s grievance, the Department informed Appellant that there
was sufficient evidence to support his conviction. Therefore, by a final
agency decision dated May 18, 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). In
the instant matter, Appellant failed to provide a urine specimen within the
mandated three-hour time frame, as provided by Department policy, on December
8, 2005. Appellant contends that he did not refuse to provide a specimen, but
rather he was unable to provide the specimen because of the prescription
medication, Triavil/Amitriptyline, he was prescribed by his doctor and was
taking at that time. Appellant informed Department administrative officials
that he was taking the prescribed medication, and that its side effects could inhibit
a person’s ability to urinate.
Appellant’s
medical records document that he was taking the medication when requested by
the Department to provide a urine specimen. When Appellant was unable to
produce the specimen, J. Hughes, a Department Registered Nurse, opined that
this medication would not prevent Appellant from urinating. Despite a doctor’s
note contradicting the RN’s assertion, Department officials incorrectly relied
upon the RN’s opinion and sanctioned Appellant under SCDC Policy OP-22.14, as
referenced above. Dr. Cusack’s note clearly apprised Department officials of
Appellant’s condition as related to his current medication:
MEDICAL
PRESCRIPTION
FOR: C. Robinson SER.
No.: 307902
LOCATION: Ridgeland DATE:
14 of March 05
RX
This patient was prescribed a medication that seriously delays urination and causes constipation.
M.D. /s/ M.D.
(Record on
Appeal (“R.” at 3) (emphasis in original).
The
doctor’s note and medical drug information clearly indicate that a potential
side effect of Triavil, specifically relevant to
the instant matter, is urinary retention. Hence, it is highly probable that
Appellant, for legitimate medical reasons, would be incapable of producing a
urinary specimen on demand. Department officials should have made allowances
under the circumstances and retested him or allowed him additional time to
produce a urine specimen. In light of the substantial and overwhelming
evidence that contradicts the Department’s decision, the Appellant’s
disciplinary conviction must be reversed as this tribunal cannot find that the
Department’s decision to deny Appellant’s grievance was the result of a routine
and good-faith exercise of the Department’s administrative responsibilities and
not arbitrary or capricious in nature.
ORDER
For
the reasons set forth above,
IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant’s disciplinary conviction in the instant
matter is hereby REVERSED.
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
|
