ORDERS:
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
This matter is currently pending before the Administrative Law Judge Division (ALJD) pursuant to the South Carolina Department
of Corrections' (Respondent or Department) Motion to Dismiss filed on January 24, 2001. Respondent seeks a dismissal on the
grounds that the Appellant has received the relief that he requested and, therefore, the claim is moot.
In Appellant's Step 1 Grievance, Appellant requested compensation to pay for needed dental work. Appellant also requested
compensation for unnecessary pain and suffering if the Department provided this dental work. In Respondent's Motion to Dismiss,
Respondent asserts that Appellant's claim is moot because Appellant has seen the dentist six (6) times since he filed his grievance on
April 20, 2000, and Appellant's dentures are in the process of being made. According to Appellant's Dental Health Records, which
was attached to the Motion to Dismiss as Respondent's Exhibit 1, Appellant has only seen the dentist four (4) times since he filed his
grievance. Appellant saw the dentist on May 9, 2000, August 3, 2000, November 21, 2000 and January 4, 2001. Although there was
a notation made on May 4, 2000 by the dentist, it does not appear that the dentist provided dental care to Appellant on that day.
Nevertheless, the Department is now providing Appellant the regular dental care that he needs and the Department stated that
Appellant's dentures will be fitted in approximately two months. Since money damages are not an available remedy under the
Administrative Procedures Act, I find that this tribunal can provide no further relief to the Appellant and this appeal has rendered
moot.
The South Carolina Supreme Court has stated:
This Court will not pass on moot and academic questions or make an adjudication where there remains no actual controversy.
Wallace v. City of York, S.C., 281 S.E.2d 487 (1981). A case becomes moot when judgment, if rendered, will have no practical
legal effect upon existing controversy. This is true when some event occurs making it impossible for reviewing Court to grant
effectual relief. Such is the situation here. Mathis v. South Carolina State Highway Dept., 260 S.C. 344, 195 S.E.2d 713 (1973).
Jones v. Dillon-Marion Human Resources Development Commission, 277 S.C. 533, 291 S.E.2d 195 (1982); see Dodge v. Dodge,
332 S.C. 401, 505 S.E.2d 344 (Ct. App. 1998).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is hereby GRANTED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
C. DUKES SCOTT
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
March 2, 2001
Columbia, South Carolina |
