ORDERS:
ORDER
GRIEVANCE NO. WRCI 0361-02
The
above-captioned case was originally assigned to another administrative law
judge on February 27, 2003, and was reassigned to the undersigned on January 6,
2006, for adjudication. In this matter, Appellant Michael Freezon appeals of
the decision of Respondent South Carolina Department of Corrections
(Department) to deny his grievance concerning its treatment of his hernia
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 December 30, 2002, and
January 21, 2003, respectively, and identified as grievance number WRCI 0361-02,
Appellant contends that the Department refused to allow him to receive surgery
for his hernia condition that had been recommended by a physician. Appellant
further contends that this refusal was unrelated to his refusal to receive
certain testing at the GI Clinic, as the physician’s recommendation for the
surgery was made prior to his refusal to receive the GI testing. In response
to Appellant’s grievance, the Department found that, in 2001, a GI specialist
had recommended that Appellant receive testing to determine whether surgery
would be appropriate for his condition, but that Appellant refused the
necessary testing at the GI Clinic on at least two occasions. The Department
further advised Appellant that, if he was still symptomatic, he could return to
the GI specialist for a new examination and possible referral for testing or
other treatment. Therefore, by a final agency decision dated February 10,
2003, the Department denied Appellant’s grievance. Appellant now appeals that
denial before this Court.
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
June 20, 2006
Columbia, South Carolina |
