ORDERS:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This matter is before me pursuant to the motion of the Respondent, South Carolina
Department of Health and Human Services, filed July 31, 1998, to dismiss this case pursuant to
ALJD Rule 38, on the ground that the Appellant's notice of appeal fails to meet the level of
specificity required by ALJD Rule 33 and the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA").
Furthermore, the Respondent contends that the defects in the notice cannot be remedied because the
time for filing an appeal has expired. No response to the motion has been received from the
Appellant or her representative. For the following reasons, I conclude that the motion must be
granted and this matter must be dismissed.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter is an appeal of the Respondent's denial of Appellant's application for retroactive
Medicaid benefits. Appellant, through her conservator, first filed an application for Medicaid
benefits in October of 1997. The Fairfield County Department of Social Services ("DSS"), acting
on behalf of the Respondent, denied the application for retroactive benefits on the grounds that
Appellant's resources exceeded the eligibility limits from July through November 1997. Appellant's
eligibility was approved effective December 1, 1997.
Appellant challenged the denial of benefits for July through November of 1997. On April
28, 1998, a Hearing Officer in the Respondent's Appeals Division conducted a fair hearing, at which
time the Appellant was represented by an attorney and by her conservator. On June 4, 1998, the
Hearing
Officer issued a decision upholding the denial of retroactive benefits, finding that Appellant's
resources exceeded the allowable eligibility limit for the months in question.
By letter dated June 26, 1998, Appellant's conservator requested an appeal of the Hearing
Officer's decision before the Administrative Law Judge Division. Respondent now moves to
dismiss this action on the grounds that the letter requesting the appeal contains no allegations
concerning any errors on the part of either DSS, the Respondent, or the Hearing Officer, nor does
it contain any details regarding the grounds for appeal.
DISCUSSION
In order to invoke the jurisdiction of the Administrative Law Judge Division in an appeal
from an agency decision, an appellant must comply with the requirements set forth in the Rules of
Procedure of the Division and the Administrative Procedures Act, S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-310, et
seq. (1986 and Supp. 1997). ALJD Rule 33 governs the content of a notice of appeal to the Division
from a final decision rendered by another agency. It states that the notice shall contain, inter alia,
"a general statement of the grounds for appeal as provided in S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(A)(6)."
Section 1-23-380(A)(6) provides the grounds upon which a reviewing court may reverse or modify
a decision of an administrative agency, including errors of law, arbitrary or capricious actions, and
actions unsupported by the substantial evidence in the record. Accordingly, a notice of appeal to the
Administrative Law Judge Division must at a minimum contain some allegation of the error
committed by the tribunal below to be in compliance with ALJD Rule 33. Moreover, case law
interpreting the Administrative Procedures Act has held, with regard to circuit court review of
administrative decisions, that the "petition" required by § 1-23-380 must "direct the court's attention
to the abuse allegedly committed below, including a distinct and specific statement of the rulings of
which appellant complains." Pringle v. Builders Transport, 298 S.C. 494, 381 S.E.2d 731 (1989);
Smith v. S.C. Dep't of Social Services, 284 S.C. 469, 327 S.E.2d 348 (1985). Furthermore, the
notice of appeal may not be amended after the expiration of the thirty day statutory period for filing
the appeal. Id.
In this case, Appellant's request for an appeal, although timely filed with the Division,
contains no allegations regarding any errors committed by the Hearing Officer, nor does it contain
any details regarding the grounds for the appeal. Instead, it merely states that the Appellant's
conservator requests "further review" of the Respondent's decision, and further states "Please let me
know if there is any particular action that I need to take in this matter." In response to the
conservator's letter, the Division sent a Notice of Assignment to the conservator which directed the
parties to the relevant provisions of the ALJD Rules of Procedure for deadlines for perfecting the
appeal and submitting briefs, and notified the parties that copies of the Rules could be obtained from
the Clerk. No further action was taken by Appellant to provide the grounds for her appeal. Since the
notice of appeal was insufficient to meet the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act and
the ALJD Rules, and since the notice may not now be amended because the time for filing an appeal
with the Division has now expired, I conclude that this matter must be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction.
ORDER
For all the foregoing reasons, the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is hereby granted and this
matter is hereby dismissed.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________________
Marvin F. Kittrell
Chief Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
August 19, 1998 |
