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 |