ORDERS:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
I. Introduction
On October 9, 1998, the South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) filed
a Motion to Dismiss Hannah L. Hill's (Hill) petition on the ground that the Administrative Law
Judge Division (ALJD) lacked appellate jurisdiction to decide this matter. Based upon the facts of
this appeal, the Motion to Dismiss is granted.
II. Analysis
A. Law
Decisions made by DHHS may be appealed to the ALJD pursuant to the Administrative Procedures
Act (APA). S.C. Code Ann. § 44-6-190 (Supp. 1997). Under the APA, the petitioner must appeal
an adverse decision of DHHS within thirty days of the receipt of the DHHS decision. S.C. Code
Ann. § 1-23-380 (Supp. 1997); Hamm v. South Carolina Public Service Com'n, 287 S.C. 180, 336
S.E.2d 470 (1985) ("While a literal reading of Section 1-23-380(b) suggests the thirty days to appeal
runs from the time the decision is made, we believe the statute must be read to allow a party thirty
days after notice of a decision to bring an appeal."). DHHS's Motion to Dismiss asserts Hill did not
timely appeal and that a late appeal requires dismissal of Hill's petition. I agree.
An appellate court has the responsibility to determine whether it has jurisdiction to review a case.
4 C.J.S. Appeal and Error § 39 (1993). In conducting that review, the appellate court must dismiss
a matter due to a lack of jurisdiction when the appealing party fails to timely file the appeal notice.
Mears v. Mears, 287 S.C. 168, 337 S.E.2d 206 (1985). Although an issue of jurisdiction is
essentially a question of law (see Bridges v. Wyandotte Worsted Co., 243 S.C. 1, 132 S.E.2d 18
(1963)), where factual determinations are necessary to resolve the question of jurisdiction, the court
may rely upon the facts placed before it. Woodard v. Westvaco Corp., 315 S.C. 329, 433 S.E.2d 890
(Ct. App. 1993). Here, affidavits and documents submitted by the parties establish the jurisdictional
facts to be examined.
B. Facts
On August 24, 1998, DHHS issued an order to Hill in which Hill was notified that she was being
denied benefits under the South Carolina Medicaid Program. The August 24, 1998 order of DHHS
was received by Hill on August 27, 1998 and acknowledged her receipt of the order by signing a
return receipt requested form from the United States Postal Service. Via an envelope with a
postmarked date of October 5, 1998, Hill filed her notice of appeal with the ALJD.
C. Conclusion
Thus, given the receipt of the DHHS order on August 27, 1998 and the filing of an appeal with the
ALJD on October 5, 1998, thirty-nine days had elapsed. Based upon the late filing, the appeal was
not timely and the petition must be dismissed. Mears v. Mears, 287 S.C. 168, 337 S.E.2d 206
(1985).
III. Order
The appeal filed by Hannah L. Hill was not timely filed. Accordingly, this matter is dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction and the appeal is ended.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________
RAY N. STEVENS
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: October 16, 1998
Columbia, South Carolina |
