Thursday, September 21, 2017

En Banc Orders

McNeil v. S.C. Department of Corrections (00-ALJ-04-00336-AP)

In this inmate grievance appeal, the Court analyzed whether it had subject matter jurisdiction over an inmate's allegation of an Eighth Amendment violation by the Department of Corrections.  The Court concluded its appellate jurisdiction under Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742 (2000), was limited to either: (1) cases in which an inmate contends that prison officials have erroneously calculated his sentence, sentence-related credits, or custody status; or (2) cases in which the Department has taken an inmate's state-created liberty interest as punishment in a major disciplinary hearing.  In Sullivan v. S.C. Department of Corrections, 355 S.C. 437, 586 S.E.2d 124 (2003), the Supreme Court held that although much of the analysis in McNeil is accurate, Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), requires minimal due process for state-created liberty interests, which are not necessarily limited to sentence credit issues and major disciplinary decisions.

Piedmont Petroleum Corporation, et al. v. S.C. Department of Revenue (03-ALJ-17-0337-CC)

Here, the Court analyzed whether the Department of Revenue had the authority to issue temporary permits allowing the off-premise sale of beer and wine on Sundays in the City of Greenville.  The Court concluded that prior to June 25, 2003, the effective date of Act 70 of 2003, the Department had the authority to issue seven-day permits within the City of Greenville.  However, as a result of the City's June 13, 2000 referendum, the Department was prohibited from issuing seven-day permits within the city effective June 25, 2003.

Anderson v. S.C. Budget and Control Board, S.C. Retirement Systems (06-ALJ-30-0008-CC)

In this case, the Court analyzed whether a member of the Retirement Systems is entitled to have her application for disability retirement benefits considered, even though the application was filed after her employment terminated, so long as her disability began while she was "in service."  The Court concluded that the words "member in service," as used in Section 9-1-1540, and as applied to an employee seeking disability retirement benefits, plainly mean a person having the status of an employee by virtue of a contract of employment that is in effect at the time the application for disability benefits is filed.  In Lazicki-Thomas v. S.C. Budget and Control Board, 378 S.C. 72, 661 S.E.2d 374 (2008), the Supreme Court affirmed this Court's analysis and application of the Anderson en banc order.

S.C. Department of Motor Vehicles v. Cain (06-ALJ-21-0790-AP)

In this case, the Court analyzed whether the DMVH hearing officers must comply with the Department's policy, setting forth conditions that must be met in order for a Section 56-1-1090(c) suspension reduction to be granted.  The Court concluded that because the Department had not promulgated Policy VS-001 as a regulation, DMVH hearing officers were not required to treat it as anything more than a non-binding guideline.  Thus, a DMVH hearing officer's failure to follow the conditions set forth in the policy when granting a suspension reduction does not per se constitute reversible error.


  • A PDF reader or viewer is required to view the orders. For a free version: