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:
Jimmy Landy Gardner, D.D.S. vs. SCDLLR

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation

PARTIES:
Appellant:
Jimmy Landy Gardner, D.D.S.

Respondents:
South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, Board of Dentistry
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
01-ALJ-11-0517-AP

APPEARANCES:
F. Barron Grier, III, Esquire, Lauri J. Soles, Esquire, and Andrew Aun, Esquire, for the Appellant

Wendy Cartledge, Esquire and Patrick D. Hanks, Esquire, for the Respondent
 

ORDERS:

FINAL ORDER

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In April 28, 1998, the South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, State Board of Dentistry (Board) found Jimmy L. Gardner, D.M.D. (Appellant) represented a danger to the public based in part on his unacceptable treatment of a patient and revoked his license to practice dentistry. In the 1998 action, the Board also considered evidence from a 1995 disciplinary action. In that action, the license of the Appellant was suspended for one year and he was placed on probation for four years. The 1998 revocation was upheld on appeal. Subsequently, on April 23, 2001, the Appellant applied to the Board for licensure. On September 23, 2001, the Board met with the Appellant present. On October 23, 2001, the Board issued its order denying the application and stating, "Applicant shall not be eligible to reapply for licensure in this State at any time in the future." The Appellant appeals the decision to the Administrative Law Judge Division (ALJD).

II. STANDARD OF REVIEWAn appeal before the ALJD is governed by the review criteria of S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-

380(A)(6) (Supp. 2001). See S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(B) (Supp. 2001) (where an ALJ is directed to conduct a review "in the same manner prescribed in [§ 1-23-380](A)."). Section 1-23-380(A)(6) establishes the following criteria:

The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings. The court may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions are:

(a) in violation of constitutional or statutory provision;

(b) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency;

(c) made upon unlawful procedure;

(d) affected by other error of law;

(e) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record; or

(f) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.

Here, the Appellant argues a reversal of the Board's decision is required because there was no evidence on which the Board based its decision and that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. In the alternative, the Appellant argues this matter should be remanded to the Board since the Board's decision fails to make specific findings of fact and fails to explain its rationale in sufficient detail to afford judicial review.

Since I find that the Board's decision fails to make specific findings of fact and fails to explain its rationale, I do not reach the merits. Rather, the Board's order is vacated, and this matter is remanded for further consideration consistent with the explanation below.



III. ANALYSIS

Findings of the Board

The standard an administrative body must satisfy in issuing its decision is now well established. "An administrative body must make findings which are sufficiently detailed to enable this Court to determine whether the findings are supported by the evidence and whether the law has been applied properly to those findings." Kiawah Property Owners Group vs. Public Serv. Comm'n of South Carolina and Kiawah Island Utility, Inc., 338 S.C. 92, 95-96, 525 S.E.2d 863, 865 (1999)(citing Porter v. S.C. Public Serv. Comm'n., 333 S.C. 12, 21, 507 S.E.2d 328, 332 (1998)). This Court will not accept an administrative agency's decision at face value without requiring the agency to explain its reasoning. Id. Findings of fact must be sufficiently detailed to enable the reviewing court to determine whether the findings are supported by the evidence in the record and whether the law has been properly applied. See Parsons v. Georgetown Steel, 318 S.C. 63, 456 S.E.2d 366 (1995) and Able Communications, Inc. v. S.C. Public Serv. Comm'n, 290 S.C. 409, 411, 351 S.E.2d 151, 152 (1986). Where material facts are in dispute, the administrative body must make specific, express findings of fact. Able. In the current case, the Board failed to meet the required standard.

Due Process

Action of an agency which affects individual rights is void where the individual has not been provided with proper notice and an opportunity to be heard. S.C. Const. Art. I, § 22 ("No person shall be finally bound by a judicial or quasi judicial decision of an administrative agency affecting private rights except on due notice and an opportunity to be heard . . . ."). Due process requires the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. LLR vs. Girgis, 332 SC 162, 503 S.E.2d 490 (Ct. App. 1998)(quoting SC Dept. of Social Services vs. Holden, 319 S.C. 72, 459 S.E.2d 846 (1986). In this case, it does not appear that Appellant was afforded an opportunity to be heard from the limited record.

Further, the Appellant's right to an impartial adjudicator is protected. "...[W]e

find the purpose of article I, § 22 is to ensure adjudications are conducted by impartial administrative bodies." Ross vs. Medical University of South Carolina, 328 S.C. 51, 69, 492 S.E.2d 62, 72 (1997). "Partiality exists where, among others, an adjudicator either has ex parte information as a result of prior investigation or has developed, by prior involvement with the case, a "will to win." Id. It is unclear exactly what happened in this case in regards to this issue. It is unclear if the panel has any of the same members. However, it is clear that the Board relied heavily on the past orders of the Board instead of considering anything presented at this hearing.

IV. Order

I remand this matter to the Board without reaching the merits. See S.C. Code Ann. §1-23-380(A)(6)(Supp.2001). On remand, the Board shall here evidence and find facts accordingly. The case shall be heard by a panel of Board member unfamiliar with the case. Thereafter, and upon consideration of the entire record made, the Board shall issue its decision. Such decision shall fall within their authority as designated at Title 40, Chapters 1 and 15. All that is required concerning their order is that an adequate order result after due process is afforded.

Accordingly, the Board's order is VACATED, and this matter is remanded to the Board who shall proceed in accordance with the dictates of this decision.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.





_______________________________

CAROLYN C. MATTHEWS

Administrative Law Judge



October 21, 2002

Columbia, South Carolina


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court