ORDERS:
ORDER
This
matter is before the Administrative Law Court (“ALC” or “Court”) pursuant to
the Request for a Contested Case Hearing filed July 24, 2007. A hearing on the
merits in this matter was held at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, February 13, 2008.
Petitioner
Anthony Walker (“Walker” or “Petitioner”) alleges that he was given misleading
information by Respondent South Carolina Budget and Control Board, South
Carolina Retirement Systems (“SCRS”) regarding the amount of money he needed in
order to “buy in” enough service time to retire. Acting and relying on this
alleged misinformation, Petitioner settled a dispute with his employer that
yielded what he believed to be the exact amount required to “buy in” the time
necessary to retire, to wit, the amount provided by SCRS.
However,
when the Petitioner tendered the check for the quoted amount, he was told that
there had been a mistake and that he would have to pay approximately twelve thousand
dollars ($12,000.00) more in order to retire. Petitioner paid this
additional sum and subsequently sought a contested case hearing before this
Court. Walker asks that SCRS reimburse him for the additional amount he had to
pay that he would have otherwise insisted his employer pay as part of the
settlement.
The
effect of Walker’s request would require this Court to render a money judgment
in what is a civil action. Importantly, this Court is not vested with
jurisdiction to issue such judgments. S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600 provides, in
pertinent part:
(B) An administrative law judge of the
division shall preside over all hearings of contested cases as defined in
Section 1-23-310 involving the departments of the executive branch of
government in which a single hearing officer is authorized or permitted by law
or regulation to hear and decide such cases, except those arising under the
Occupational Safety and Health Act, those matters which are otherwise provided
for in Title 56, or those other cases or hearings which are prescribed for or
mandated by federal law or regulation, unless otherwise by law specifically
assigned to the jurisdiction of the Administrative Law Judge Division.
S.C. Code Ann. §
1-23-600(B) (Rev. 2005).
Furthermore,
S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-310 provides, in pertinent part:
(3) “Contested Case” means a proceeding
including, but not restricted to, ratemaking, price fixing, and licensing, in
which the legal rights, duties, or privileges of a party are required by law to
be determined by an agency after an opportunity for hearing.
S.C. Code Ann.
§ 1-23-310(3) (Rev. 2005).
The
case before me is not a typical ratemaking, price fixing or licensing case, nor
anything of that genre. Nor is reimbursement for loss caused by an alleged
agency error a matter in which the “legal rights, duties, or privileges of a
party are required by law to be determined by an agency after an opportunity
for a hearing.” See S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-310(3), supra.
Instead,
the matter sounds in tort or contract and possibly requires the application of
some equitable remedy. The ALC “has no authority to decide civil matters nor
to award monetary damages in cases.” Stephen P. Bates, “The
Contested Case Before the ALJD,” in South Carolina Administrative
Practice & Procedure 169 (Randolph R. Lowell & Stephen P. Bates,
eds. SC Bar 2004) (emphasis added). Accordingly, I find that this Court lacks
jurisdiction to hear this matter.
THEREFORE,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-referenced matter be DISMISSED,
WITHOUT PREJUDICE so that it may be heard by a court of competent
jurisdiction if the parties so desire.
AND
IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________________
JOHN D. MCLEOD
Administrative
Law Judge
April 14, 2008
Columbia, South Carolina
|
