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:
Patricia Logan vs. SCBCB

AGENCY:
South Carolina Budget and Control Board

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
Patricia Logan

Respondents:
South Carolina Budget and Control Board, South Carolina Retirement Systems
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
06-ALJ-30-0638-CC

APPEARANCES:
n/a
 

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

 


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court