ORDERS:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
In the above-captioned matter, the Department of Social Services (Department) denied
Appellant’s request for a continuance of her Family Independence Stipend based on her failure to
qualify for a mental or physical disability. By notice of appeal filed February 2, 2004, Appellant
seeks review of that dismissal before this Court.
The Appellant filed a one page letter on April 5, 2004 which constituted her brief. The
entire contents of the argument are as follows: “I don’t agree with that case because I want them
to make the right divison [sic] with me and my kids, because I need more money to get them
school stuff and to pay the bills Mary A Wright” [sic] The Respondent filed its brief on April
29, 2004, contending that the record reflects that the decision of the Fair Hearing Committee was
supported by substantial evidence. In addition, the Respondent asked that the appeal be dismissed
on the grounds that the appellant failed to allege that her rights were prejudiced or how the Fair
Hearing Committee erred in its decision. Mindful of the exhortation in the note to ALC Rule 38
which states “In all cases involving pro se litigants or those without substantial knowledge and
experience in administrative matters, the administrative law judge shall make reasonable efforts to
assist a party to assure fairness,” this Court scheduled the appellate hearing for July 21, 2004.
Approximately five days prior to the hearing, the Appellant contacted the Court to ascertain if she
had to attend the hearing as scheduled. She was told that this was her opportunity to present her
case to the judge, and to explain why the Department was wrong in its decision. On July 20,
2004, the Appellant again contacted the Court and stated that she would be unable to attend the
hearing scheduled for the next day due to a headache and her high blood pressure. Based on the
inability of the Appellant to recognize the importance of following the ALC Rules and the
procedures set out in the Order Governing Procedure filed March 3, 2004, the Court determined
that oral argument would not be required as allowed by ALC Rule 39, and that the decision
would be based on the information filed with the Court.
However, neither Appellant’s notice of appeal nor her appellate brief (the one-page letter
dated April 2, 2004) contains a cognizable ground for appeal to this Court. Neither document
sets forth a specific reason why the Department should not have denied her application. On
account of Appellant’s failure to state a particular error of law or fact for this Court to review, as
required by ALC Rule 37B, this appeal must be dismissed.
This Court is mindful of the difficulties facing pro se litigants and its duty to assist them to
ensure fairness, and the fact that appellate courts will occasionally hear an appeal despite poorly-stated grounds for appeal if the court is able to readily determine the issue to be reviewed and the
appeal appears to have merit, see, e.g., Sandel v. Cousins, 266 S.C.19, 221 S.E.2d 111 (1975).
Nevertheless, where, as here, the appellant does not set forth any specific, articulated grounds for
appeal, and no grounds, meritorious or otherwise, readily appear to the reviewing court, an
appellate court has little choice but to dismiss the appeal. See, e.g., Graham v. Kearns, 278 S.C.
197, 197-98, 294 S.E.2d 38, 38 (1982) (dismissing appeal because, as “the exceptions point out
no particular error of law or fact, this Court would be required to re-try the entire case”); Solley
v. Weaver, 247 S.C. 129, 131,146 S.E.2d 164, 165 (1966) (“We have held in many cases that
every ground of appeal ought to be so distinctly stated that the Court may at once see the point
which it is called upon to decide without having to ‘grope in the dark’ to ascertain the precise
point at issue.”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the above-captioned appeal is DISMISSED
pursuant to ALC Rule 38 for Appellant’s failure to state a cognizable ground for appeal.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
_________________________________
Carolyn C. Matthews
Administrative Law Judge
Columbia, SC
August 6, 2004 |
