ORDERS:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This matter comes before the Administrative Law Judge Division ("Division") pursuant to the appeal of Stan Gorlitsky,
D.V.M., who holds a license to practice veterinary medicine issued by the South Carolina Board of Veterinary Medicine
("Board"). In his appeal, filed with the Division on September 20, 2002, Dr. Gorlitsky challenges the August 9, 2002 Final
Order and Decision of the Board in which the Board, among other things, suspended Dr. Gorlitsky's license for a period of
one year after finding that Dr. Gorlitsky provided sub-standard care to four of his patients. In addition, Dr. Gorlitsky
moved the Division to stay the August 9 Order of the Board, which would take effect on October 1, 2002. A hearing on
Dr. Gorlitsky's motion was scheduled for September 25, 2002.
On September 25, 2002, counsel for Respondent moved to dismiss based upon Dr. Gorlitsky's failure to timely file his
appeal. Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 40-69-150,
Any person who feels aggrieved by any action of the board in denying, suspending, refusing to renew, or revoking his
certificate of registration or license may appeal therefrom to an adminstrative law judge as provided under Article 5 of
Chapter 23 of Title 1 [The Administrative Procedures Act] within 30 days after receipt of the order of the board.
S.C. Code Ann. § 40-69-150(Supp. 2001)
Respondent mailed the August 9 Order to Dr. Gorlitsky's address of record via certified mail, return receipt requested, on
August 15, 2002. According to the return receipt received by Respondent on August 21, the Order was received at Dr.
Gorlitsky's address of record on August 17, 2002. Therefore, to be a timely filing, Dr. Gorlitsky would have had to file his
appeal with the Division no later than September 16, 2002. Because he filed his appeal on September 20, 2002, Dr.
Gorlitsky has failed to invoke the jurisdiction of this tribunal.
It is well-established that a court does not have the authority to extend the time for taking an appeal from a decision of an
administrative agency. E.g., Mears v. Mears, 287 S.C. 168, 337 S.E.2d 206 (1985); Burnette v. S.C. State Highway Dep't,
252 S.C. 568, 167 S.E.2d 571 (1969) (addressing an appeal from the Board of Condemnation). This tribunal recognizes the
harsh result of this decision but is constrained by the rules of this tribunal and legal precedent in this State. See Gibbes v,
Beckett, 84 S.E. 534 (1917) ("The law requiring appeals to be taken within a fixed time may sometimes produce hardship,
but it is important to the administration of justice that there be no uncertainty. There will be few, if any, cases of hardship if
the time allowed is utilized without dependence on quick work at the end of the period. However that may be, the court has
no power to extend the time fixed by law"). Without reaching either the merits of the appeal or Dr. Gorlitsky's motion to
stay,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and the appeal of Dr. Gorlitsky is
DISMISSED;
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________________________
C. DUKES SCOTT
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
September 25, 2002
Columbia, South Carolina |
