South Carolina              
Administrative Law Court
Edgar A. Brown building 1205 Pendleton St., Suite 224 Columbia, SC 29201 Voice: (803) 734-0550

SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

CAPTION:
Annette and Mark Woods vs. SCDSS

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Social Services

PARTIES:
Petitioner/Appellant:
Annette and Mark Woods

Respondents:
South Carolina Department of Social Services
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
00-ALJ-18-0525-CC

APPEARANCES:
n/a
 

ORDERS:

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On September 26, 2000, I issued an Order requiring all parties to file Prehearing Statements within fifteen (15) days of the date of that Order. The Prehearing Statements were due on October 11, 2000. The Petitioners filed their Prehearing Statement on October 31, 2000. However, the South Carolina Department of Social Services (Department) has failed to file a Prehearing Statement. After the parties failed to comply with the time period imposed in the Prehearing Statement Order, my office sent the parties a letter on October 16, 2000, further requesting compliance with that Order. The letter required that a Prehearing Statement be filed no later than October 26, 2000. That letter was sent via certified U.S. mail. The signed return receipt (PS Form 3811) was received by this office on October 17, 2000, evidencing that the Department received the letter.

Administrative Law Judge Division Rule 23 provides:

The administrative law judge may dismiss a contested case or dispose of a contested case adverse to the defaulting party. A default occurs when a party fails to plead or otherwise prosecute or defend, fails to appear at a hearing without the proper consent of the judge or fails to comply with any interlocutory order of the administrative law judge.



(Emphasis added). As of the date of this Order of Dismissal, the Department has failed to submit a Prehearing Statement. Furthermore, this office has not received any returned correspondence or verbal communication concerning its failure to comply with the time period imposed in both the Prehearing Statements Order and the October 16 letter. Moreover, this office called the Department's counsel via telephone on November 1, 2000 to determine why the Department continued not to comply with the Prehearing Statement Order. Though the Department's counsel was not available, this office requested that he call this office concerning this case. However, the Department's counsel did not return our call. "There is a limit beyond which the court should not allow a litigant to consume the time of the court . . . ." Georgian Apparel, Inc. v. Todd, 303 S.C. 87, 92, 399 S.E. 2d 16, 19 (Ct. App. 1990). Therefore, since the Department has failed to submit a Prehearing Statement as ordered by this Court, I find that it is in default and that this case must be dismissed pursuant to ALJD Rule 23.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this matter is hereby dismissed and the Petitioners

shall be granted the relief they request.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.





______________________________

Ralph King Anderson, III

Administrative Law Judge



November 6, 2000

Columbia, South Carolina


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court