SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

In the above-captioned matter, Respondent filed a Petition for Administrative Review of Administrative Order No. 98-0176-UST, in which the Department ordered Respondent to correct certain statutory and regulatory violations, pay a penalty of $5,175, and pay registration fees of $984 within thirty days of the date of the order. The case was scheduled for a contested case hearing before the Administrative Law Judge Division on Tuesday, May 11, 1999. However, on April 14, 1999, Kelly D.H. Lowry, Counsel for the Department, made a Motion to Dismiss alleging a lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Respondent's appeal of the Administrative Order was untimely. Counsel for Respondent did not respond to the Motion to Dismiss.

On April 28, 1999, the Department withdrew its April 14, 1999 Motion to Dismiss because of a technical error and filed another Motion to Dismiss reflecting correction of the error. Because the case was scheduled to be heard eight days after the Department's April 28, 1999, Motion to Dismiss, this tribunal is expediting its ruling on the motion.

The Department issued Administrative Order No. 98-0176-UST on December 23, 1998, and the Williamsburg County Sheriff's Office served a copy of the Order on Respondent on January 11, 1999. Respondent filed her Petition for Administrative Review on February 3, 1999, twenty-three days after service of the Order. Regulation 61-72.201.A requires that a Petition for Administrative Review be filed within fifteen days of receiving notice of a final decision. See 25 S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-72.201.A (Supp. 1998).

A court has a duty to determine whether it has jurisdiction in a matter. Bridges v. Wyandotte Worsted Co., 243 S.C. 1. 132 S.E.2d 18 (1963). Further, issues relating to subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time. Johnson v. State, 319 S.C. 62, 459 S.E.2d 840 (1955). Because of Respondent's failure to timely appeal the Department's Administrative Order, the Petition for Administrative Review must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.