ORDERS:
ORDER
GRIEVANCE NO. LIEBER 0269-04
In the above-captioned matter, Appellant Gary Wise appeals of the decision of Respondent South Carolina Department of Corrections (Department) to deny his grievance concerning the medical treatment he has received for his heart condition. Based upon the record presented in this appeal, I find that the Department’s decision to deny Appellant’s grievance must be affirmed.
BACKGROUND
In Step 1 and Step 2 Inmate Grievance Forms, submitted on April 20, 2004, and June 9, 2004, respectively, and identified as grievance number LIEBER 0269-04, Appellant contended that, in the two years since his open-heart surgery, he had not received adequate follow-up medical care for his heart conditions. In particular, he contended that he should be have seen by a cardiologist to address his lingering complaints. In response to Appellant’s grievance, the Department found that Appellant had “already been approved and scheduled for a cardiology follow-up.” Therefore, by a final agency decision dated July 23, 2004, the Department denied Appellant’s grievance. Appellant now appeals that denial before this Court. On appeal, Appellant complains that, while he was sent to a cardiologist for follow-up care, this cardiologist was not the same doctor that performed his original heart surgery.
DISCUSSION
This appeal is before this Court pursuant to Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742 (2000), Sullivan v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, 355 S.C. 437, 586 S.E.2d 124 (2003), and Slezak v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, 361 S.C. 327, 605 S.E.2d 506 (2004). Having fully considered the documents filed by Appellant and the Department and having closely reviewed the record in this matter, I find that the Department’s decision to deny Appellant’s grievance was the result of a routine and good-faith exercise of the Department’s administrative responsibilities that is supported by sufficient evidence in the record. Further, there is nothing in the record to suggest that the Department’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or the result of personal bias or prejudice. Accordingly, the Department’s decision in this matter should be affirmed.
ORDER
For the reasons set forth above,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Department’s decision to deny Appellant’s grievance is AFFIRMED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
1205 Pendleton Street, Suite 224
Columbia, South Carolina 29201-3731
August 11, 2005
Columbia, South Carolina |