Opinion
22-ALJ-22-0139-AP
06-21-2022
Eddy A. Hernandez, Appellant, v. South Carolina Department of Employment and Workforce and Ross Dress for Less, Inc., Respondents.
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 the Appellate Panel decision to Eddy A. Hernandez (Appellant) on March 22, 2022 affirming the Appeal Tribunal decision that Appellant is overpaid $5,640, finding he was ineligible for full benefits during the period of April 5, 2020, through June 20, 2020. Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal with the ALC on April 25, 2022. On April 27, 2022, this Court issued a Notice of Assignment. Upon receiving a courtesy copy of the Court's record consisting of Appellant's Notice of Appeal, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction with the Court on May 25, 2022, stating that Appellant did not serve the notice of appeal in this matter on Respondent within thirty (30) days of the March 22, 2022 decision from the Appellant Panel. An exhibit attached to Respondent's motion shows that Appellant filed his Notice of Appeal on April 25, 2022, and showing that he served "Office of General Law Court[,] Edgar A Brown Building[,] 1205 Pendleton ST STE 224[,] Columbia S.C. 29202" on April 25, 2022. No response to the motion was filed with this Court.
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 S.E.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 Dep't, 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 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 his own inaction, the Appellant simply failed to take advantage of his 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 his notice of appeal in a timely fashion with this Court, nor serve it on the Respondents, 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).
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." Service of the notice of intent to appeal is a jurisdictional requirement and this Court has no authority to extend or expand the time in which the notice of intent to appeal must be served. Mears v. Mears, 387 S.C. 168, 337 S.E.2d 206 (1995). In the case at hand, Appellant did not timely serve Respondents with the notice of appeal. Therefore, while Appellant did attempt to timely file the notice of appeal by sending it to the Court within the thirty-day period after receipt of the final decision, he did not cross the mandatory jurisdictional threshold of timely serving such a request on the necessary parties. 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.