Opinion
22-ALJ-22-0137-AP
06-06-2022
Shirley Jones, Appellant, v. South Carolina Department of Employment and Workforce, Respondent.
ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
S. Phillip Lenski Administrative Law Judge
This matter is before the South Carolina Administrative Law Court (ALC or court) on the appeal of Shirley Jones (Appellant) filed on April 19, 2022. The Appellant is appealing the Department of Employment and Workforce (Department or Respondent) Appellate Panel's decision affirming the Appeal Tribunal's decision denying the Appellant's application for a waiver of the overpayment amount of $6,630.00 upon finding the Appellant did not submit a timely request for waiver consideration.
On May 25, 2022, the Department filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction for the Appellant's failure to timely file and serve her appeal. The Department cited Subsection 41-35-750 of the South Carolina Code and ALC Rule 33, both of which require that an appeal requesting judicial review of a final decision of the Department must be filed in this court and served upon the Department within thirty (30) days of the date of mailing of the Department's decision. The Department contends that because the Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal with the court, this court is without jurisdiction to hear this appeal. On May 31, 2022, the Appellant filed a response to the Department's Motion to Dismiss explaining that the reason she did not follow up in a timely matter is because she did not understand the appeal process and had to get someone to help her.
In this case, it appears the Department mailed its final decision to the Appellant of March 8, 2022, therefore, in accordance with S.C. Code Ann. § 41-35-750 and ALC rule 33 the Appellant was required to file an appeal with this conn and to also serve the appeal upon all parties no later than April 7, 2022. The Appellant filed an incomplete Notice of Appeal with this court on March 21, 2022. On March 21, 2022, the court mailed the Appellant a Memorandum informing her that the court had received an incomplete request for appeal and that her case would not be assigned to an administrative law judge until the court received a proof of service showing that the request was sent to all parties. The Appellant was also informed that if the court did not receive the requested information within ten (10) days of the date of the Memorandum, her case would be returned to her unprocessed. On April 11, 2022, the court returned the Appellant's case to her unprocessed for failing to comply within the specified time period. On April 19, 2022, the Appellant resubmitted a Notice of Appeal with the court, over a month after the statutory time period to file an appeal.
The court recognizes that the Appellant is proceeding pro se, however, pro se litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys. See State v. Burton, 356 S.C. 259 n.5, 589 S.E.2d 6, 9 n.5 (2003) ("A pro se litigant who knowingly elects to represent himself assumes full responsibility for complying with substantive and procedural requirements of the law."). Timely filing and service of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement and this court does not have the authority to extend or expand the time for filing such appeal. See Mears v. Mears, 287 S.C. 168, 337 S.E.2d 206 (1985); State v. Brown, 344 S.C. 302, 543 S.E.2d 568 (Ct. App. 2001). Therefore, because the Appellant failed to timely file her appeal with the court, this court does not have jurisdiction to hear it and pursuant to the Department's motion, this court concludes that this matter must be dismissed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Department's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and this appeal is DISMISSED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.