ORDERS:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The
above-captioned case is before this Court upon the request of Petitioner
Michelle Hatfield for a contested case hearing to challenge the decision of
Respondent South Carolina Budget and Control Board, South Carolina Retirement
Systems (SCRS), to deny her application for disability retirement benefits. By
a Motion to Dismiss filed on April 21, 2006, SCRS moved to dismiss this matter
because Petitioner failed to timely file her request for a contested case with
this Court, and thus failed to properly invoke this Court’s jurisdiction.
Petitioner has not filed a response to the motion filed by SCRS. For the
reasons set forth below, I find that SCRS’ motion to dismiss must be granted.
BACKGROUND
On
January 11, 2006, Respondent SCRS issued a Final Agency Determination to
Petitioner Michelle Hatfield, in which SCRS denied her application for
disability retirement benefits. On that same day, SCRS mailed the Final Agency
Determination to Petitioner along with a cover letter explaining how to
challenge the determination by filing a request for a contested case hearing
with the Administrative Law Court. See Resp’t Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. #1.
The cover letter explained that the request must be filed with the
Administrative Law Court within thirty days of Petitioner’s receipt of the
determination and provided Petitioner with the address to the Court and a blank
form for a Request for a Contested Case Hearing, as well as information about
the Court’s filing fee. See Resp’t Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. #1. In
particular, in the section of the letter captioned “DEADLINE TO APPEAL,” the
cover letter informed Petitioner that, “[i]n order to appeal the Final Agency
Determination, you must file the Request for a Contested Case Hearing with the
Administrative Law Court within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt
of this Final Agency Determination,” and that, “[i]f you fail to respond
within this time limitation, your right to appeal the Final Agency
Determination will end.” Resp’t Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. #1, at 2 (emphasis in
original).
Petitioner
received the Final Agency Determination, with the cover letter and attached
documents, by certified mail on January 13, 2006. See Resp’t Mot. to
Dismiss, Ex. #2. Subsequently, Petitioner submitted a Request for a Contested
Case Hearing and a Request to Waive Filing Fee to SCRS; these documents were
received by SCRS on February 13, 2006. However, Petitioner did not file those
documents or similar papers with this Court at that time. In fact, the Court
did not receive Petitioner’s request for a contested case hearing and request
for a waiver of the filing fee until SCRS forwarded those documents to the
Court on March 15, 2006, after it had learned, through a conversation with the
Clerk’s Office, that Petitioner had not filed any of her documents with the
Court.
DISCUSSION
The
South Carolina Administrative Law Court is authorized to preside over contested
cases concerning disputes between a member of the South Carolina retirement
system and SCRS. See S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-23-600(B) (Supp. 2005),
9-21-60 (Supp. 2005). However, for this Court to hear such a contested case,
its jurisdiction must be properly invoked through a timely request for a
contested case. See Botany Bay Marina, Inc. v. Townsend, 296
S.C. 330, 372 S.E.2d 584 (1988) (holding that a party’s failure to file an
appeal of a zoning decision within the statutory time period divested the board
of adjustment of jurisdiction to hear the appeal), overruled on other
grounds by Woodard v. Westvaco Corp., 319 S.C. 240, 460 S.E.2d 392
(1995); Burnett v. S.C. State Highway Dep’t, 252 S.C. 568, 167 S.E.2d
571 (1969) (holding that a landowner’s failure to timely appeal a condemnation
decision by the Highway Department deprived the reviewing court of jurisdiction
to hear the appeal); see also, e.g., Schaible Oil Co. v. N.J. Dep’t
of Envtl. Prot., 586 A.2d 853, 855-56 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1991)
(“The statutory time limit for requesting an adjudicatory hearing is mandatory
and jurisdictional[;] . . . . enlargement of statutory time for appeal to a
state administrative agency lies solely within the power of the Legislature . .
. and not with the agency or the courts.”); Lewis v. N.C. Dep’t of Human
Res., 375 S.E.2d 712, 714 (N.C. Ct. App. 1989) (“The right to appeal to an
administrative agency is granted by statute, and compliance with statutory
provisions is necessary to sustain the appeal.”). In the instant matter,
Petitioner failed to timely file her request for a contested case to challenge SCRS’
Final Agency Determination and, therefore, failed to properly invoke this
Court’s jurisdiction.
Pursuant
to ALC Rule 11(C), a request for a contested case hearing to challenge a final
agency determination “must be filed and served within thirty (30) days after
actual or constructive notice of the agency’s determination.” Similarly,
Section 9-21-60 of the South Carolina Retirement Systems Claims Procedures Act
provides that a request for contested case review of a final decision by SCRS
must be filed “within thirty calendar days after the claimant receives [SCRS’]
final decision.” S.C. Code Ann. § 9-21-60. In the case at hand, Petitioner
did not file a request for a contested case hearing to challenge SCRS’ denial
of her application for disability retirement benefits with this Court within
thirty days after she received—and thus had actual notice of—the denial on
January 13, 2006. In fact, Petitioner did not file a request for a contested
case with this Court at any time. Therefore, while Petitioner did attempt to
timely file a request for a contested case by sending a request to SCRS within
the thirty-day period after she received SCRS’ final determination, she did not
cross the mandatory jurisdictional threshold of timely filing such a request
with this Court. Accordingly, this Court has no choice but to find that
Petitioner failed to properly invoke this Court’s jurisdiction and to conclude
that this matter must be dismissed. However, in dismissing this case, this
Court wishes to emphasize that, while it is sympathetic to Petitioner’s circumstances
and realizes that this dismissal may seem unduly harsh, it has an obligation to
carefully examine jurisdictional questions like that presented here, see,
e.g., State v. Johnston, 327 S.C. 435, 438, 489 S.E.2d 228, 230 (Ct.
App. 1997), rev’d on other grounds, 333 S.C. 459, 510 S.E.2d 423 (1999)
(holding that “it is the duty of the court to assure that it renders no
decision in a matter when it has no authority to act”), and is constrained from
extending the time for filing a request for a contested case or deeming an
untimely request to be timely because of the filing party’s mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, see, e.g., Burnett,
252 S.C. at 570-71, 167 S.E.2d at 572.
ORDER
For
the reasons set forth above,
IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED that SCRS’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the
above-captioned case is DISMISSED with prejudice.
AND
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
JOHN D.
GEATHERS
Administrative
Law Judge
1205
Pendleton Street, Suite 224
Columbia,
South Carolina 29201-3731
May 18, 2006
Columbia, South Carolina |