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:
Edings W. Wilson, #13529 vs. SCDLLR, et al

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
Edings W. Wilson, #13529

Respondents:
South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, Division of Professional and Occupational Licensing, Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
01-ALJ-11-0342-IJ

APPEARANCES:
n/a
 

ORDERS:

ORDER OF TEMPORARY INJUNCTION

Petitioner Edings Wilson seeks a temporary injunction prohibiting the respondent Board from issuing or seeking to enforce a cease and desist order pending his completion of continuing education credits. The motion is granted as set forth herein.

As a result of a clerical error in his office, petitioner had not renewed his license to engage in land surveying for the past three (3) years. When the oversight was discovered, petitioner filed an application to have his license reinstated. Petitioner had completed fourteen (14) of the thirty (30) hours of continuing education requirements that had become due during the subject period, and he sought a medical exclusion based on back problems for the remaining sixteen (16) hours that were due for reinstatement. Board staff denied the request for medical exclusion and by letter dated July 23 2001, advised that his license could not be reinstated until the additional continuing education hours were completed.

Because the Board will not convene again until the end of September, petitioner filed a petition asking that the additional educational hours be temporarily waived so as to permit him to continue to practice until the Board could consider his request. When the Board failed to respond to the petition, this action was commenced. Petitioner seeks an order requiring the Board to issue a limited waiver until the issue of the medical exclusion can be decided by the full Board. In the alternative, he seeks an order enjoining the Board from issuing any orders or seeking to prohibit him from practicing his profession until the issue of the medical exclusion can be considered by the Board.

A hearing was convened on August 14, 2001 to consider the matters raised by the petition. Through its counsel, the Board filed a return to the petition advising, inter alia, that petitioner can obtain additional continuing education hours in a number of settings between now and the scheduled Board meeting so as to prevent the necessity of addressing the waiver for educational credits retroactively.

After reviewing the verified petition, the applicable authorities, and the arguments of counsel, I find that a temporary restraining order should be issued prohibiting the Board from taking any action regarding petitioner's license for a period of two (2) weeks, to allow him sufficient time to obtain sixteen (16) additional hours in continuing education credits so that his license can be reinstated without Board action. Should petitioner be unable to complete the additional continuing education requirements during that time period, the Board shall convene telephonically or by some other means to consider the Petition for Limited Waiver currently pending before the Board.

The grant of a temporary injunction is reserved to the sound discretion of the court. Fuller-Ahrens Partnership v. South Carolina Dept. of Highways and Public Transportation, 311 S.C. 177, 427 S.E.2d 920 (Ct.App. 1993). In addressing the issues presented, a court should consider the flexible interplay of four factors: the possibility of irreparable harm to the plaintiff if the relief is denied, the apparent strength of the plaintiff's case on the merits, the potential harm to defendants if the injunction is issued, and the public interest. Furr v. Town of Swansea 594 F.Supp. 1543 (D.S.C. 1984). See also Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Atlantic Coast Line Ry. Co., 88 S.C. 477, 71 S.E. 39 (1911).

When a court is requested to issue a temporary injunction it may consider the merits of a case to the extent necessary to determine whether a temporary injunction is appropriate. Roberts v. Union County Board of School Trustees, 284 S.C. 299, 301, 326 S.E.2d 163, 164 (Ct.App.1985). Once a prima facie showing has been made entitling the plaintiff to injunctive relief, a temporary injunction will be granted without regard to the ultimate termination of the case on the merits. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Custom Recording Co., Inc., 258 S.C. 465, 471-72, 189 S.E.2d 305, 308 (1972). A temporary injunction is made without prejudice to the rights of either party pending a hearing on the merits, and when other issues are brought to trial, they are determined without reference to the temporary injunction. Alston v. Limehouse, 60 S.C. 559, 569, 39 S.E. 188, 191 (1901). See also Helsel v. City of North Myrtle Beach, 307 S.C. 29, 413 S.E.2d 824 (1992).

Balancing the equities here, particularly the irreparable harm to the petitioner versus the potential harm to the public, I conclude that a temporary injunction is appropriate as set forth herein.

THEREFORE, it is ordered:

  • Petitioner's request for temporary injunction is granted insofar as the Board is prohibited from taking any action affecting, regarding or relating to petitioner's license for a period of two (2) weeks, to allow him sufficient time to obtain sixteen (16) additional hours in continuing education credits so that his license can be reinstated without Board action.
  • Should petitioner be unable to complete the additional continuing education requirements during that time period, the Board shall convene telephonically or by some other means to consider the Petition for Limited Waiver currently pending before the Board.
  • This temporary injunction will expire automatically at 5:00 p.m. on August 28, 2001.

IT IS SO ORDERED.



____________________________________

C. Dukes Scott

Administrative Law Judge





August 15, 2001






Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court