Opinion
24-ALJ-22-0022-AP
03-21-2024
Terrissa A. Solomon, Appellant, v. South Carolina Department of Employment and Workforce, Respondent.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Deborah Brooks Durden, Judge
BACKGROUND
This appeal is before the Administrative Law Court (ALC or Court) on an appeal from a final decision of the South Carolina Department of Employment and Workforce (Respondent or Department) pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 41-35-750 (2021). The Department issued a decision to Terrissa A. Solomon (Appellant) on December 12, 2023, affirming the Appeal Tribunal decision. Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal with the ALC on January 12, 2024. On February 29, 2024, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction with this Court stating that the Appellant did not serve the notice of appeal in this matter on Respondent within thirty (30) days of the December 12, 2023 decision from the Department. This Court did not receive any response to the motion.
DISCUSSION
The South Carolina Administrative Law Court is authorized to preside over appeals of decisions of the South Carolina Department of Employment and Workforce. See S.C. Code Ann. § 41-35-750 (2021). However, for this Court to hear such an appeal, its jurisdiction must be properly invoked. See Botany Bay Marina, Inc. v. Townsend, 296 S.C. 330, 372 SE.2d 584 (1988) (holding that a party's failure to file an appeal of a zoning decision within the statutory time period divested the board of adjustment of jurisdiction to hear the appeal), overruled on other grounds by Woodard v. Westvaco Corp., 319 S.C. 240, 460 S.E.2d 392 (1995); Burnett v. S.C. State Highway Dept, 252 S.C. 568, 167 S.E.2d 571 (1969) (holding that a landowner's failure to timely appeal a condemnation decision by the Highway Department deprived the reviewing court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal.) The Court may not relieve a party from failure to timely file an appeal due to mistakes, inadvertence or excusable neglect. Burnett, 167 S.E.2d at 571.
S.C. Code Ann. § 41-35-750 (2021) requires that a party seeking review of a final decision of the Department must initiate an action in the ALC "within thirty days from the date of mailing of the department's decision." Pursuant to SCALC Rule 33, the notice of appeal "shall be filed with the Court and a copy served on each party and the agency whose final decision is the subject of the appeal within thirty (30) days of receipt of the decision." Thus, in order for this Court to obtain jurisdiction to consider this appeal, Appellant must comply with the statutory mandate to file and serve the appeal within 30 days of the date the final decision was mailed. In this case, Appellant's time to file and serve the Notice of Appeal from the Appellate Panel decision expired after January 11, 2024; the Notice of Appeal filed on January 12, 2024 was untimely.
The Appellant was given notice of the Department's decision as well as the opportunity to pursue review of that decision before becoming bound by the terms of the decision. S.C. Const. art. I, § 22. ("No person shall be finally bound by a judicial or quasi-judicial decision of an administrative agency affecting private rights except on due notice and an opportunity to be heard; and he shall have in all such instances the right to judicial review."). By her own inaction, the Appellant simply failed to take advantage of her right to judicial review in this matter. Zaman v. S.C. State Bd. of Medical Exam'rs, 305 S.C. 281, 285, 408 S.E.2d 213, 215 (1991) ("One cannot complain of a due process violation if he has recourse to a constitutionally sufficient administrative procedure but merely declines or fails to take advantage of it."). Therefore, this Court finds that the Appellant did not file her notice of appeal in a timely fashion with this Court, nor serve it on the Respondent, and thus failed to properly invoke the jurisdiction of the ALC. While this Court recognizes the harsh result of this decision in this case, it is constrained by the rules and legal precedent in this State. See, McClain v. Ingram, 314 S.C. 359, 444 S.E.2d 512 (1994). Accordingly, this Court has no choice but to find that Appellant failed to properly invoke this Court's jurisdiction and to conclude that this matter must be dismissed. For the reasons set forth above,
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent's motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the above-captioned case is DISMISSED with prejudice. AND IT IS SO ORDERED.