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). 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.
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
|
