ORDERS:
ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter is before this tribunal pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. sections 1-23-310, et seq.
Cotton Acres Mini Mart, Petitioner, requests review of the Department's decision to disqualify the
store from the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Program for three years. The Department
forwarded the contested case to this tribunal by transmittal dated November 4, 1997. The
Department filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, or, in the alternative, Motion for
Summary Judgment on March 30, 1998. After timely notice to the parties, a hearing was held on
April 7, 1998, at the Administrative Law Judge Division in Columbia, South Carolina. Based upon
undisputed facts, as a matter of law, this tribunal grants the Department's Motion for Summary
Judgment.
SUMMARY JUDGEMENT
On December 20, 1995, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
entered into a vendor agreement with Cotton Acres Mini Mart, a convenience store owned by
Charles L. Dixon. See Resp. Ex. 2. Pursuant to the agreement, Cotton Acres was authorized as a
vendor in the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) Program. The agreement provided that "[t]he
vendor will be monitored periodically to insure compliance with the terms of the Agreement." Id.
Furthermore, the agreement clearly stated that any fraud or abuse of the WIC Program could result
in disqualification. Id.
After receiving a complaint about Cotton Acres from Mary Watts, Food Stamp Electronic
Benefit Transfer (EBT) Fraud Investigator, the Department conducted a series of undercover
operations at the store and found various violations. As a result of the violations, the Department
disqualified Cotton Acres from participating in the WIC program for three years.
Subsequent to the Department's disqualification, because of numerous violations of federal
regulations applicable to the EBT Program, Petitioner was permanently disqualified from
participation in the program by the U.S. D. A. Food and Consumer Service. See Resp. Ex. 5.
Petitioner's appeal of this decision was denied and the disqualification was upheld by the U.S.D.A.
Food and Consumer Service Administration Review Branch. See Resp. Ex. 6. Petitioner does not
dispute the fact that he was permanently disqualified from participating in the federal Food Stamp
Program.
The applicable State regulation dispositive of this case states: "[d]isqualification from the
Food Stamp Program shall result in automatic disqualification from the WIC Program for the same
length of time as the Food Stamp disqualification." S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-94, Sec. 901.4(1). Additionally, the Vendor Agreement clearly states that "[t]he vendor understands that . . .
disqualification from another Food and Nutrition Service Program (i.e., Food Stamp Program) result
[sic] in disqualification from the WIC Program." Resp. Ex. 2.
A motion for a judgment on the pleadings should be treated as one for summary judgment
when matters are considered outside the pleadings. S.C.R.Civ. P. 12(c). Pursuant to Rule 56 of the
South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, "[a] judge may grant summary judgment if there is no
genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."
Charleston Lumber Co. v. Miller Housing Corp., 318 S.C. 471, 478, 458 S.E.2d 431, 436 (Ct. App.
1995).
As a matter of law, Petitioner is disqualified from the WIC program because of the
disqualification from the federal Food Stamp Program. Therefore, there is no genuine issue of
material fact before this tribunal and summary judgment is appropriate.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent's Motion for
Summary Judgment is granted.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________________
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
April 20, 1998
Columbia, South Carolina |
