ORDERS:
ORDER
By a Final Administrative Order dated May 6, 2004, a Fair Hearing Committee under
Respondent South Carolina Department of Social Services (Department) concluded that the
Department had established a Family Independence (FI) administrative error (AG) claim against
Appellant’s household. Specifically, the Department determined that Appellant had received
overpayments in FI benefits totaling $2051.00 during the period between April 2002 and August
2003. These overpayments resulted from the Department’s failure to adjust Appellant’s benefits
based upon statements from Appellant in three FI applications that her spouse was not only living
with her, but also earning income. Hence, Appellant received benefits from the FI program that she
was ineligible to receive and must now repay. By a letter dated June 3, 2004, Appellant sought
review of the Department’s Final Administrative Order before this tribunal.
However, neither this letter, which serves as Appellant’s Notice of Appeal, nor Appellant’s
Appellate Brief, a one-page letter dated August 26, 2004, contains a cognizable ground for appeal
to this tribunal. Neither document sets 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(6) of the Administrative Procedures Act. See S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(6) (Supp. 2003).
Rather, Appellant merely cites her inability to repay the overpayments as her basis for appealing the
Department’s decision.
This tribunal is mindful of the difficulties facing pro se litigants and of its duty to assist them
to ensure fairness in proceedings before this Court. See ALC Rule 38, 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., Graham v. Kearns, 278 S.C. 197, 197-98, 294 S.E.2d 38, 38 (1982) (dismissing
appeal because, as “the exceptions point out no particular error of law or fact, this Court would be
required to re-try the entire case”); 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
Post Office Box 11667
Columbia, South Carolina 29211-1667
November 1, 2004
Columbia, South Carolina |
