SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

This matter is before me pursuant to a Notice of Appeal filed by Petitioners on October 19, 2005. Petitioners appeal an October 12, 2005 decision of the South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, Board of Dentistry (Board), in which Mr. H. Rion Alvey, Administrator of the Board, denied Petitioners’ request for copies of the initial complaints in disciplinary proceedings pending before the Board.^[1] On October 18, 2005, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal as Interlocutory. A hearing was held before me at the offices of the Administrative Law Court (ALC or Court) on Friday, November 18, 2005.

Pursuant to the South Carolina Supreme Court’s decision in The Island Packet v. Kittrell, 365 S.C. 332, 339, 617 S.E.2d 730, 734 (2005), an intermediate action or ruling by the Board is immediately reviewable if a review of the final decision would not provide an adequate remedy. See also S.C. Code Ann. 1-23-380(A)(2005). This determination must be made on a case by case basis. Kittrell at 734. In this case, Petitioners argue that the initial complaints are needed so that they may properly prepare a defense and effectively cross-examine witnesses.^[2] Petitioners also argue that the Board’s refusal to provide the complaints constitutes a violation of their State and Federal constitutional rights.

I find that Petitioners’ interlocutory appeal is not currently reviewable by the ALC, as review of the Board’ final decision would provide Petitioners with an adequate remedy. Not only may Petitioners raise any procedural or substantive issues before the Board, but the Board may also dismiss all or part of the charges against Petitioners. Furthermore, on subsequent appeal to the ALC, the Court may reverse or modify the Board’s final order or remand the case for further proceedings “if substantial rights of the appellant[s] have been prejudiced” because the Board’s decision is “in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; …made upon unlawful procedure;…affected by other error of law; …[or] arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion.” S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(A)(6)(2005). Therefore, the subsequent appeal procedures would provide Petitioners with an adequate remedy. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is dismissed.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

__________________________________

Marvin F. Kittrell

Chief Administrative Law Judge

November 22, 2005

Columbia, South Carolina