South Carolina              
Administrative Law Court
Edgar A. Brown building 1205 Pendleton St., Suite 224 Columbia, SC 29201 Voice: (803) 734-0550

SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

CAPTION:
Gary Sederbaum vs. SCDHHS

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services

PARTIES:
Appellant:
Gary Sederbaum

Respondents:
South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
08-ALJ-08-0232-AP

APPEARANCES:
n/a
 

ORDERS:

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This matter is before the Administrative Law Court (“ALC”) in its appellate jurisdiction pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600(D) (as amended by 2008 S.C. Act No. 334).[1] Gary Sederbaum (“Sederbaum”) appeals the decision of the South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) determining that he was not eligible for the Working Disabled program based on the fact that he did not meet the medical criteria.

Sederbaum’s brief states that he “understand[s] why [his] case got denied for ‘Working Disabled’” and requests that the court consider the new treatments he started since he received the decision by HHS. Furthermore, upon HHS’s recommendation, it appears that Sederbaum has since reapplied for benefits based on his new treatments.[2]

As set forth above, this matter is before the ALC in its appellate jurisdiction pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600(D).  Accordingly, the Administrative Procedures Act’s standard of review governs this appeal.  See S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-23-600(E), -380; see also Byerly Hosp. v. S.C. State Health & Human Servs. Fin. Comm’n, 319 S.C. 225, 229, 460 S.E.2d 383, 385 (1995).  The procedures and standards used by appellate bodies, including the ALC, to review agency decisions are provided by S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380.  See S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600(E) (directing Administrative Law Judges to conduct appellate review in the same manner prescribed in Section 1-23-380). On appeal, review is limited to the Record on Appeal. S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(4) (“The review . . . must be confined to the record.”). Accordingly, new evidence may not be submitted for consideration on appeal and the court must limit its review to the record presented to the agency below.

The entirety of Sederbaum’s argument on appeal focuses on additional evidence that the court cannot consider. Furthermore, the additional evidence Sederbaum requests that this court consider has been submitted to HHS in a reapplication for benefits that is apparently currently pending before HHS. As such, this issue is not ripe for review. See Eagle Container Co., LLC v. County of Newberry, 366 S.C. 611, 622 S.E.2d 733 (Ct. App. 2005), rev’d on other grounds, No. 26538, 2008 WL 4004110 (S.C. Sept. 2, 2008) (examining the ripeness doctrine and explaining that it prevents premature adjudication and protects “the agencies from judicial interference until an administrative decision has been formalized and its effects felt in a concrete way by challenging parties”). Accordingly, this matter is dismissed without prejudice for Sederbaum to appeal any subsequent decision by HHS regarding his reapplication.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PAIGE J. GOSSETT

Administrative Law Judge

September 24 2008

Columbia, South Carolina



[1] The Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) was amended and renumbered via 2008 S.C. Act No. 334 (eff. June 16, 2008). Accordingly, all citations to the APA in this Order are to the recently amended and renumbered sections enacted by 2008 S.C. Act No. 334.

[2] Sederbaum’s reapplication is not before the court on this appeal. Further, the Record on Appeal and the briefs do not indicate whether a Final Administrative Order has been issued on the reapplication.


~/pdf/080232.pdf
PDF

Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2022 South Carolina Administrative Law Court