In the above-captioned matter, Appellant Carl Green seeks a hearing on the decision of
Respondent South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS or Department)
to deny his application for Medicaid benefits under the Aged, Blind, and Disabled Program. For
the reasons set forth below, I find that this matter should be remanded to the Department for
further proceedings.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On December 7, 2004, Appellant requested a “fair hearing” before the Department to
challenge the Department’s initial denial of his application for Medicaid benefits. By a notice
mailed to Appellant by certified mail on January 7, 2005, the Department scheduled a hearing on
Appellant’s benefits application for March 3, 2005; Appellant received and signed for the notice
on January 12, 2005. However, Appellant failed to appear at the March 3, 2005 hearing, and, by
an order dated March 10, 2005, the presiding DHHS hearing officer dismissed Appellant’s
appeal as abandoned because of his failure to appear at the hearing. By a letter filed on March
19, 2005, Appellant, through his sister, Hilda Green, appealed the Department’s dismissal of his
case to this Court. In the letter, Ms. Green does not contend that Appellant failed to receive
notice of the DHHS hearing or claim that he had permission to not appear at the hearing, but
rather she explains that Appellant likely forgot about the hearing because, since his brain surgery
in May 2004, Appellant “has had difficulty remembering dates and events,” “has difficulty
functioning daily around the house,” and must be watched due to his memory lapses. Ms. Green
further states that Appellant’s family was not aware of the scheduled DHHS hearing. Based
upon these circumstances, Ms. Green, on behalf of Appellant, asks this Court to “reschedule
another hearing for [Appellant].”
ORDER
As Appellant’s request in this matter is more of the nature of a motion to be relieved
from the order dismissing his appeal because of his mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect,
rather than a direct appeal of the merits of that order, I find that this matter should be remanded
to the Department for it to consider whether, because of Appellant’s particular medical
condition, he has presented sufficient grounds to be relieved from the order of dismissal and to
have his case reopened for a new hearing before the Department. See S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(6) (2005) (authorizing a court reviewing an agency decision to “remand the case for further
proceedings” where appropriate); Bennett v. City of Clemson, 293 S.C. 64, 66-67, 358 S.E.2d
707, 708-09 (1987) (holding that, unless specifically curtailed by statute or regulation, an
administrative agency has the inherent power to reconsider or rehear its decisions “where there is
justification and good cause”). Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-captioned matter is REMANDED to
Respondent South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services for it to consider whether
to relieve Appellant from the order dismissing his appeal because of his excusable neglect in
failing to attend the scheduled hearing. If the Department should find such excusable neglect, it
should schedule a new “fair hearing” on Appellant’s application for Medicaid benefits before a
DHHS hearing officer.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this remand EXTINGUISHES the instant case, and
that any appeal of a decision made by the Department upon remand of this matter must be filed
as a new appeal with this Court.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
March 23, 2005
Columbia, South Carolina
