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:
Leo O. Baker et al. vs. SCDHEC

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control

PARTIES:
Petitioner:
Leo O. Baker and Phillip L. Baker

Respondent:
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
00-ALJ-07-0679-CC

APPEARANCES:
No Appearance for the Petitioners

Leslie Stidham, Esquire, DHEC
 

ORDERS:

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This matter comes before the Administrative Law Judge Division (ALJD or Division) pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-23-310 et seq. (1986 and Supp.1999), S.C. Code Ann. 1-23-600(B) (Supp. 1999), and 25 S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-72 (Supp.1999). The Petitioners requested a contested case hearing by appealing South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control's (Department) decision to deny their applications to construct individual sewage treatment and disposal systems, or septic tanks, on property located in Williamsburg County, South Carolina. A hearing in this matter was held at the offices of the Division in Columbia, South Carolina on April 18, 2001.

Prior to the hearing into the merits of this case, the Department's Motion to Require Elouise M. Baker to Withdraw from Representation of the Petitioners, filed with the Division on March 15, 2001, was addressed. Ms. Baker contended that she should be allowed to represent her sons in this matter because her sons authorized her to act on their behalf. However, Leo O. Baker and Phillip L. Baker are not minor children. Moreover, the property is personally owned by each Petitioner individually and is not titled in the name of any "partnership, corporation or association." Rule 9(A), ALJDRP sets forth, in relevant part:

Parties in a contested case have the right to participate or to be represented in all hearings or pre-hearing conferences related to their case. A partnership, corporation or association may be represented by any member, officer, director or duly authorized employee. An agency may be represented by the director, an official, or duly authorized employee of the agency. Any party may be represented by an attorney admitted to practice, either permanently or pro hac vice, or as otherwise authorized by law. . . No one shall be permitted to represent a party where such representation would constitute the unauthorized practice of law.

Therefore, since Ms. Baker is not acting on behalf of a minor child or on behalf of a "partnership, corporation or association," I find that she cannot represent her sons in this matter. Furthermore, both Petitioners were notified of this hearing and, in fact, Ms. Baker was notified before the hearing that if I found that she could not represent her sons and they did not appear, that this case may be dismissed.

THEREFORE, it is hereby ordered that this case is dismissed prejudice .

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.



______________________________

Ralph King Anderson, III

Administrative Law Judge

April 18, 2001

Columbia, South Carolina


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court