ORDERS:
ORDER
This matter is before me as the result of Ms. Bridges' appeal of a determination that she is
not eligible for Medicaid benefits. The South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services
(DHHS) has moved to dismiss Ms. Bridges' appeal on the grounds that the Administrative Law
Judge Division (ALJD) lacks jurisdiction in this matter for the following reasons: (1) the appeal
request filed by Ms. Bridges fails to meet the required level of specificity in order to invoke a review
of the agency's decision under the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act; and (2) that the
defects in the request cannot be remedied by amendment because the time for filing an appeal of the
agency's decision has expired. For the reasons discussed below, I find that the agency's motion
should be granted and that this appeal should be dismissed.
BACKGROUND
This case involves an eligibility determination by the South Carolina Medicaid Program,
which is administered by DHHS. Acting on behalf of DHHS, the Marion County Department of
Social Services denied Ms. Bridges' application for Medicaid based upon the fact that she was not
"disabled" under the relevant federal criteria. Because she did not meet the disability criteria, Ms.
Bridges did not qualify for Medicaid.
Ms. Bridges appealed the determination on May 12, 1997 and requested an administrative
hearing. On May 27, 1997 the Honorable Eugene Lail, a Hearing Officer in the Appeals Division of
DHHS denied Ms. Bridges request for an administrative hearing and dismissed the appeal.
By letter dated June 25, 1997, Ms. Bridges (as filed by her "Representative" Sir Vernon L.
Gurley) requested an appeal before the ALJD. The entire text of the appeal request reads as follows:
The Petitioner Mildred G. Bridges asserts her right to petition for further review of
order of dismissal in the appeal matter of Mildred G. Bridges v. SCdHHS [sic] Case
97 MAO-147 (disability) DSS case 97189173 - SSN - 248-62-0653 pursuant to the
Admin. Procedures Act S.C. Ann. Section 1-23-310 - et seq 1976 as amended [sic]
Therefore in accordance with Rule 33 of the Rules of Procedure for the S.C.
Administrative Law Judge divison [sic], the petition for review is directed to The
Administrative Law Judge divison [sic] and a copy of said petition is also provided
to the dHHS [sic] office of General Counsel. Petitioner further states that notice of
appeal has also been filed with the SSA Office copies attached hereto all having been
done in the time frame allotted.
The appeal request makes no allegations regarding any factual or legal errors by DHHS or
by the Hearing Officer, nor does it contain any details regarding Ms. Bridges' grounds for this appeal.
Her letter simply restates the cover letter which accompanied the Order of Dismissal issued on May
27, 1997.
DISCUSSION
In order to invoke the jurisdiction of the Administrative Law Judge Division in an appeal of
an agency decision, an individual is required to comply with the requirements of S.C. Code Ann. §1-23-380. The petition for appeal must be filed within thirty (30) days of the receipt of the decision
being appealed, and the petition must state the specific grounds for the appeal. Id.; see also ALJD
Rule 33. DHHS contends that the petition for appeal submitted by Ms. Madison in this case does
not contain the required level of specificity with respect to the basis for the appeal. This defect alone
is sufficient to deprive the ALJD of jurisdiction and requires the dismissal of this action.
Failure to state the basis for the appeal
In order for an administrative appeal to be properly instituted, the Administrative Procedures
Act (A.P.A.) requires that the basis for the appeal -- i.e., the alleged error(s) of law or the alleged
erroneous factual finding(s) -- must be set forth. See, S.C. Code Ann. §1-23-380 (Supp. 1996). The
South Carolina Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the failure to do so is fatal to the appeal,
since the A.P.A. does not allow jurisdiction to vest in the absence of a sufficient notice of appeal.
Pringle v. Builders Transport, 298 S.C. 494, 381 S.E.2d 731 (1989), (citing Smith v. South Carolina
Dept. of Social Services, 284 S.C. 469, 327 S.E.2d 348 (1985)).
Furthermore, in both Smith and Pringle, the Supreme Court specifically held that the liberal
policy of allowing the amendment of pleadings does not apply to the amendment of a petition for
appeal filed under the A.P.A. after the expiration of the thirty (30) day statutory period for filing the
appeal. Smith at 471, 327 S.E.2d at 349. Pringle at 495-96, 381 S.E.2d at 732. Therefore the
Appellant in now procedurally barred from amending her petition to state a basis for appeal.
The letter requesting this appeal does not allege that any error -- factual or legal -- was
committed by DHHS during the agency-level appeal or by DSS in the underlying eligibility
determination. Therefore, this appeal has not been perfected as required by the A.P.A., and
consequently must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
ORDER
The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
Marvin F. Kittrell
Chief Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
August 4, 1997 |