ORDERS:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The above-captioned case came before the Administrative Law Judge Division (ALJD or Division) on August 3, 1999,
pursuant to the Petitioner's appeal of the Department of Health and Environmental Control's (Department or DHEC) denial
of Septic Tank Permit Application No. 1999010061.
This matter was set for a contested case hearing pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-23-310, et seq., (1986 and Supp. 1998),
1-23-600(B) (Supp. 1998) and 48-1-50 (Supp. 1998). The Petitioner and counsel for the Department were notified of the
date, time and place of the hearing in this matter by a Notice of Hearing mailed by my office on April 2, 1999. Because he
did not have any legal counsel of record, the Petitioner was also notified of the hearing by U.S. certified mail. My office
received the Petitioner's signed return receipt on April 7, 1999.
Therefore, I find that Petitioner was notified of the hearing by my Order dated April 2, 1999. However, after receiving
proper notice of the hearing, neither any counsel for the Petitioner nor the Petitioner himself appeared at the designated time
and place. Moreover, Petitioner at no time contacted the ALJD to request a continuance or to inform the Division that he
would not appear at the hearing on this matter. In fact, as of the time of this Order, we have heard nothing form the
Petitioner.
After waiting ten minutes beyond the scheduled time of the hearing for the Petitioner to made an appearance, the hearing
was commenced. Counsel for DHEC, who had brought witnesses prepared to testify in this matter, made a Motion to
Dismiss. Administrative Law Judge Division Rule 23 provides that a default occurs when a party fails to appear at a hearing
without the proper consent of the Judge. The Administrative Law Judge may adversely dispose of a case against a defaulting
party under those circumstances.
I find that the Petitioner is in default in this case. "There is a limit beyond which the court should not allow a litigant to
consume the time of the court...." Georganne Apparel, Inc. v. Todd, 303 S.C. 87, 92, 399 S.E.2d 16, 19 (Ct. App. 1990).
Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal of the Petitioner of the final determination of the Department in this matter be
dismissed.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________________________
Ralph King Anderson, III
Administrative Law Judge
August 5, 1999
Columbia, South Carolina
|
