ORDERS:
ORDER
GRIEVANCE NO. MSU 0155-02
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 Theron Maxton appeals of the
decision of Respondent South Carolina Department of Corrections (Department) to
deny his grievance concerning its treatment of his sore and swollen feet.
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 November 19, 2002, and
January 6, 2003, respectively, and identified as grievance number MSU 0155-02,
Appellant contends that prison medical personnel refused to treat his sore and
swollen feet. In response to Appellant’s grievance, the Department found that
prison medical staff had treated Appellant for complaints with his feet on
November 15, 2002, and December 23, 2002, with such treatment including the
prescription of medication for his pain and the ordering of mediplast pads for
corns on his feet. The Department further found that there was no evidence to
support the contention that Appellant had been denied access to medical care,
as Appellant had been seen by medical staff on a number of other occasions in
the late 2002 and early 2003 for complaints unrelated to his feet. Therefore,
by a final agency decision dated January 27, 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 |
