ORDERS:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Pursuant to ALJD Rule 37A and an Order of this tribunal dated July 18, 2001, Appellant in the above-captioned matter was required to file an Appellate Brief with the Administrative Law Judge Division (ALJD)
and to serve such brief on Respondent within fifteen days after his receipt of the Record on Appeal. ALJD
Rule 3C adds five days to the prescribed period for a response from a party when that party is responding to a
document served by mail. The Record on Appeal in this case was mailed to Appellant and filed with this
office by the Department of Health and Human Services on August 9, 2001; Appellant was therefore required
to file his brief with this office by August 29, 2001. To date, Appellant has not filed a brief with this court.
Appellant's failure to file a brief within the required period is grounds for this tribunal to dismiss his appeal
under ALJD Rule 38. This Rule provides that "[u]pon motion of any party, or on its own motion, an
administrative law judge may dismiss an appeal for failure to comply with any of the rules of procedure for
appeals, including the failure to comply with any of the time limits provided by this section." ALJD Rule 38
(2001). This tribunal, however, is not quick to dismiss this appeal.
For one matter, Appellant has not been entirely unresponsive to this court. Appellant's wife contacted the
ALJD by telephone at some point over the weekend of August 11-12, 2001. And, in response to this office's
return telephone call and letter of August 13, 2001, Appellant, through his wife, sent a single-page,
handwritten letter dated August 14, 2001, to this court. (While this letter did describe Appellant's discontent
with the administrative process, it does not sufficiently allege any errors of fact or law such that it can be
considered an appellate brief.)
Further, this tribunal is mindful of the challenges presented to pro se litigants attempting to navigate their
way through the administrative appeals process, and is aware of its duty to make reasonable efforts to assist
parties without substantial knowledge and experience in administrative matters to assure fairness in the
proceedings. See Note, ALJD Rule 38. In that vein, this office contacted Appellant by telephone and by
letter in an effort to explain the appeals process to Appellant. But, this tribunal cannot sacrifice its
impartiality to satisfy the needs of the pro se litigant. See 2 Am. Jur. 2d Administrative Law § 316 (1994)
("Due process entitles an individual in an administrative proceeding to a fair hearing before an impartial
tribunal.") (emphasis added). It cannot overlook Appellant's failure to file an appellate brief. This tribunal
understands the difficulties facing Appellant, and has offered what assistance it can.
Thus, given this tribunal's efforts to assist Appellant in properly filing an appellate brief and Appellant's
subsequent failure to file such a brief with this court, this appeal is hereby dismissed pursuant to ALJD Rule
38.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the above-captioned appeal is dismissed for Appellant's failure to file
an appellate brief within the time period proscribed by the ALJD Rules and this tribunal's Order of July 18,
2001.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
Post Office Box 11667
Columbia, South Carolina 29211-1667
September 4, 2001
Columbia, South Carolina |
