ORDERS:
ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
In
the above-captioned matter, Petitioner Patricia Logan requested a contested
case hearing to challenge the decision of Respondent South Carolina Budget and
Control Board, South Carolina Retirement Systems (SCRS), to deny her
application for disability retirement benefits from the South Carolina
Retirement System. On October 19, 2006, Respondent SCRS filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment in this matter, in which it contends that there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact in this case and that it is entitled to judgment
in its favor as a matter of law pursuant to the applicable statutes and a
recent en banc decision of the Administrative Law Court. Petitioner did
not file a response to this motion. For the reasons set forth below, I find
that Respondent’s motion for summary judgment must be granted.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner
Patricia Logan was employed as a building permit clerk for Spartanburg County
from September 15, 1986, to November 8, 2001. During her employment with
Spartanburg County, Petitioner accrued fifteen years and two months of service
credit in the South Carolina Retirement System, one of the retirement systems
managed by Respondent SCRS. Petitioner’s employment with Spartanburg County
terminated on November 8, 2001, and Petitioner has not worked for a covered
employer since that time, becoming an inactive member of the South Carolina
Retirement System.
Petitioner
filed an application for disability retirement benefits from the South Carolina
Retirement System on June 7, 2004, some two and a half years after terminating
her employment with Spartanburg County. Upon receiving Petitioner’s
application, SCRS sent a letter to Petitioner notifying her that it was unable
to accept her application because she was not an active member of the South
Carolina Retirement System. By a letter dated April 25, 2005, Petitioner’s
former employer, Spartanburg County, requested that SCRS reconsider its
rejection of Petitioner’s application for disability retirement benefits. On
May 24, 2005, SCRS responded to the request for reconsideration, explaining
that, because Petitioner was not “in service” at the time she filed her
application for disability retirement benefits, she was precluded, by law, from
receiving such benefits. Petitioner appealed that decision to the Director of
SCRS on May 30, 2006, and, on June 8, 2006, SCRS issued a Final Agency
Determination finding that Petitioner’s application for disability retirement
benefits was properly rejected because she was not a member “in service” at the
time she filed her application. Petitioner timely filed a request for a
contested case hearing to challenge that determination before this Court.
DISCUSSION
In
this matter, Respondent SCRS has moved for summary judgment, contending that
there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute in this case and that
it is entitled to judgment in its favor as a matter of law. Summary judgment
is appropriate where it is clear that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact in a case and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. See Rule 56(c), SCRCP; see also, e.g., Dawkins
v. Fields, 354 S.C. 58, 69, 580 S.E.2d 433, 439 (2003). As discussed
below, I find that, on the question of whether Petitioner timely filed her
application for disability retirement benefits, there are no genuine issues as
to any material facts and SCRS is entitled to summary judgment in its favor as
a matter of law.
My
decision in this matter is controlled by the en banc decision of this
Court issued on August 21, 2006, in Anderson v. S.C. Budget & Control
Bd., S.C. Retirement Sys., Docket No. 06-ALJ-30-0008-CC (S.C. Admin. Law
Ct. Aug. 21, 2006) (en banc). In Anderson, the Court found that, under
S.C. Code Ann. § 9-1-1540 (Supp. 2005), a member of the South Carolina
Retirement System must be “in service” at the time he or she files an
application for disability retirement benefits in order to be eligible to
receive such benefits. Id. By rule, this Court’s en banc
decision in Anderson is “binding upon all individual administrative law
judges in all subsequent cases,” including the instant matter. ALC Rule
70(F). In the case at hand, Petitioner has applied for disability retirement
benefits from the South Carolina Retirement System under Section 9-1-1540.
However, it is undisputed that Petitioner did not file her application for such
benefits while she was “in service” with Spartanburg County, but rather, filed
her application some two and a half years after her employment with the county
was terminated. Therefore, as Petitioner was not a member “in service” at the
time she filed her application for disability retirement benefits, I find that,
under Anderson, Petitioner’s application was properly rejected by SCRS
as untimely filed.
ORDER
As
there are no genuine issues as to any material facts regarding the timing of
the filing of Petitioner’s application for disability retirement benefits and
as SCRS is entitled to judgment in its favor as a matter of law under this
Court’s en banc decision in Anderson,
IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent SCRS’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
AND
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
JOHN D.
GEATHERS
Administrative
Law Judge
1205 Pendleton
Street, Suite 224
Columbia, South
Carolina 29201-3731
November 29, 2006
Columbia, South Carolina
|