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:
Anthony Reed vs. SCDLLR

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation

PARTIES:
Appellant:
Anthony Reed

Respondents:
South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, South Carolina Manufactured Housing Board
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
99-ALJ-11-0413-AP

APPEARANCES:
n/a
 

ORDERS:

ORDER OF REMAND

This matter is before the Administrative Law Judge Division ("Division") pursuant to the appeal of Anthony Reed ("Appellant") from a decision of the Respondent, South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, South Carolina Manufactured Housing Board ("Board"), denying Appellant's application for a license as a manufactured home retail multi-lot sales person. Appellant attended a hearing before the Board on July 13, 1999, at which the Board denied the application on the grounds that the Appellant had, while previously licensed, submitted financial applications on behalf of various customers which were allegedly found to contain misrepresentations, and that he had signed off on transactions entered into by unlicensed salespersons.

Upon review of the file and the briefs submitted in this matter, it is apparent that the Board did not provide a certified transcript of the hearing at which Appellant appeared. Rather, it merely provided as part of the "Record on Appeal" a set of minutes of its July 13, 1999, meeting, at which Appellant's application was discussed and at which Appellant presumably made some kind of statement.

A person's right to follow his chosen profession is protected by the Due Process Clause. Brown v. S.C. State Bd. of Education, 301 S.C. 326, 391 S.E.2d 866 (1990). Furthermore, "when the State seeks to revoke or deny a professional license, [due process] interests are implicated and procedural due process requirements must be met. [Citations omitted.] The State must afford notice and the opportunity for a hearing appropriate to the nature of the case." Id. at 329, 391 S.E.2d at 867. While due process is "flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands," Stono River Envtl. Protection Ass'n v. S.C. Dep't of Health and Envtl. Control, 305 S.C. 90, 94, 406 S.E.2d 340, 341 (1991), at a minimum, certain elements must be satisfied in order for procedural due process requirements to be met, including adequate notice, adequate opportunity for a hearing, the right to introduce evidence, and the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses. Huellmantel v. Greenville Hosp. System, 303 S.C. 549, 402 S.E.2d 489 (Ct. App. 1991).

Without a certified transcript of the proceedings before the Board, it is impossible to determine whether the Appellant was afforded due process in this case or to afford any kind of meaningful review of the Board's decision. There is simply no indication whether the Appellant was allowed to fully present his case, whether opposing witnesses testified, or whether the Appellant was allowed to cross-examine any opposing witnesses. Moreover, there is nothing in the incomplete record to guide this Court in determining whether the Board's decision was supported by the evidence. Accordingly, I conclude that this case must be remanded to the Board to conduct a contested case hearing pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act. On remand, the Board shall provide the Appellant with adequate notice of the charges against him; shall provide thirty (30) days' notice of the hearing, as required by S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-320(a); and shall afford the Appellant the opportunity to present witnesses and evidence on his own behalf, as well as the opportunity to cross-examine any adverse witnesses.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.







_________________________________

Marvin F. Kittrell

Chief Judge



Columbia, South Carolina

January 12, 2000


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court