ORDERS:
ORDER OF REMAND
________________________
REMANDED
________________________
STATEMENT
OF THE CASE
The
above-captioned matter is before the South Carolina Administrative Law Court
(“ALC” or “Court”) pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600(D) (Supp. 2006) for an
administrative appeal. In this appeal, Mae Baxter (“Appellant”) challenges the
South Carolina Department of Social Services’ (“Department” or “Respondent”)
Final Administrative Order (“Final Order”) dated April 25, 2007. In its Final
Order, the Department found that Appellant received an over-issuance of food
stamps for the months of September, October, and November 2004, totaling
$1,557.00, which the Department seeks to recoup from the Appellant. In her
appeal, Appellant asserts that she should not be responsible for repayment of
the over-issuance of benefits.
After
timely notice to the parties, oral arguments on this appeal were heard before
me on November 15, 2007 at the Court in Columbia, South Carolina. However, after a review of the Record on Appeal, and the parties’ briefs
and oral arguments, I find that this matter must be remanded to the Department
as its Final Order fails to set forth findings and
conclusions of law which are sufficiently detailed to enable this Court to
conduct a meaningful appellate review.
STANDARD
OF REVIEW
This
Court’s appellate review of final decisions of the Department is governed by
the standards provided in S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380 (Supp. 2006). Section
1-23-380 provides that this Court “may not substitute its judgment for the
judgment of the [Respondent] as to the weight of the evidence on questions of
fact.” § 1-23-380(A)(5). However, this Court, pursuant to § 1-23-380(A)(5),
may
reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been
prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions or
decisions are:
(a)
in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;
(b)
in excess of the statutory authority of the [Board];
(c)
made upon unlawful procedure;
(d)
affected by other error of law;
(e)
clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence
on the whole record; or
(f)
arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly
unwarranted exercise of discretion.
Id.; see
also Lark v. Bi-Lo, Inc., 276 S.C. 130, 276 S.E.2d 304 (1981). Furthermore,
if the Court finds the Department’s decision deficient in certain particulars,
it “may…remand the case for further proceedings.” S.C. Code Ann. §
1-23-380(A)(5)(Supp. 2006).
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to the South
Carolina Supreme Court’s decision in Porter v. South Carolina Public Service
Commission, 333 S.C. 12, 21, 507 S.E.2d 328, 332 (1998),
‘An administrative body must make findings
which are sufficiently detailed to enable [the appellate Court] to determine
whether the findings are supported by the evidence and whether the law has been
applied properly to those findings. Where material facts are in dispute, the
administrative body must make specific, express findings of fact.’ An
administrative agency is not required to present its findings of fact and
reasoning in any particular format, although the better practice is to present
them in an organized and regimented manner. However, ‘a recital of conflicting
testimony followed by a general conclusion is patently insufficient to enable a
reviewing court to address the issues.’ (citations omitted).
Additionally, an
administrative agency must explain its rationale in sufficient detail to afford
judicial review. Id. at 22, n. 3. See also Lee County
Sch. Dist. Bd. of Tr. v. MLD Charter Sch. Acad. Planning Comm., 371 S.C. 561, 641 S.E.2d 24 (2007) (extending the
requirements of presenting findings to all administrative agencies).
In its Order, the Department determined that Appellant
received an over-issuance of food stamp benefits in the amount of $1,557.00,
which she must repay to the Department. However, in
its Findings of Fact, the Department merely recites the conflicting testimony of
the Appellant and the Department’s witnesses. Further, the Final Order provides
a general conclusion that Appellant received an over-issuance of food stamps in
the amount of $1,557.00 for which she is responsible for repaying to the
Department. To support its conclusory statement, the Department vaguely cites
to portions of the DSS Food Stamp Online Manual and DSS Family Independence
Online Manual. Therefore, it is unclear to the Court under which regulations
and statutes the Department found that Appellant is liable for repayment of the
over-issuance of food stamps. Further, it is unclear from a review of the
Record whether Appellant was receiving Family Independence benefits or food
stamp benefits, or both.
Accordingly, I find that the
Department’s Final Order in this matter is deficient as it fails to set forth
findings which are sufficiently detailed and fails to offer a sufficient explanation for its
conclusion, thereby making it difficult for this Court to conduct a meaningful
appellate review. Based on the Final Order and the Record on Appeal, the Court
is unable to determine whether Appellant was charged with an over-issuance of Family
Independence benefits, food stamp benefits, or both, and which statutes and
regulations the Department relied upon in determining that Appellant must repay
the over-issuance of those benefits.
ORDER
For the reasons
set forth above,
IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is REMANDED to the Department to
issue a Final Order, within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order,
containing detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law sufficient for this
Court to provide Appellant with meaningful appellate review. The
conclusions of law must contain the specific statutes and regulations the
Department relied upon in making its determination in this matter. Furthermore,
if Appellant wishes to appeal the Department’s Final Decision pursuant to this
Court’s Order, the filing fee shall be waived.
AND
IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________________
February 29, 2008 Marvin
F. Kittrell
Columbia, South Carolina Chief
Administrative Law Judge
The Department’s brief is likewise not of much
assistance in this matter as it interchanges the terms Family Independence
benefits and food stamps without explanation. Further, the Department’s brief makes
references to statutory authority which is no longer valid and does not
specifically address the issue of requiring Appellant to repay food stamp
benefits, only Family Independence benefits.
|
