Hatton v. S.C. Dep't of Corr.

1

Elliott Hatton, Respondent, v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, Appellant.

No. 2022-UP-375

Appellate Case No. 2018-001322

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

October 12, 2022

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

Submitted September 21, 2022

Appeal From The Administrative Law Court Harold W. Funderburk, Jr. Administrative Law Judge

Lake Eric Summers, of Malone Thompson Summers & Ott, LLC, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Elliott Hatton, pro se.

PER CURIAM

The South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC) appeals an order of the Administrative Law Court (ALC) reversing and remanding SCDC's final decision regarding Elliott Hatton's inmate pay. On appeal, SCDC argues (1) the procedure by which the ALC fashioned its ruling was imbued with evidentiary error because the ALC erroneously found the contracts between SCDC and the private industry sponsor were not properly included in the record but then contradictorily relied upon them when it ruled on Hatton's claim; (2) the procedure by which the ALC fashioned its ruling was imbued with evidentiary error because SCDC's rulings on Hatton's step one grievance, in which it referenced its contracts with the private industry sponsor, constituted legitimate evidence in the record; (3) the procedure by which the ALC fashioned its ruling was imbued with evidentiary error because Hatton did not meet the burden mandated by our supreme court in Torrence v. South Carolina Department of Corrections^[1]; (4) the procedure by which the ALC fashioned its ruling was imbued with evidentiary error because the ALC erroneously failed to remand Hatton's back pay claim to SCDC; (5) the ALC erroneously relied on dicta from Torrence when reversing its denial of Hatton's back pay claim; (6) the ALC erroneously found the workers' compensation premium that SCDC charged the private industry sponsor was part of Hatton's gross wages; (7) the ALC erroneously found the social security withholding payment that SCDC charged the private industry sponsor was part of Hatton's gross wages; and (8) the ALC erroneously found the surplus fund amount that SCDC charged the private industry sponsor was part of Hatton's gross wages. We affirm.^[2]

As to issues 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8, we hold the ALC did not err in finding the money SCDC received from the private industry sponsor, including the money for social security withholding payments, workers' compensation premiums, and the surplus fund amount, constituted Hatton's gross wages. See Kiawah Dev. Partners, II v. S.C Dep't of Health &amp Env't Control, 411 S.C. 16, 28, 766 S.E.2d 707, 715 (2014) ("In an appeal from an ALC decision, the Administrative Procedures Act provides the appropriate standard of review."); S.C. Dep't of Corr. v. Mitchell, 377 S.C. 256, 258, 659 S.E.2d 233, 234 (Ct. App. 2008) ("Section 1-23-610 of the South Carolina Code ([Supp. 2021]) sets forth the standard of review when the court of appeals is sitting in review of a decision by the ALC on an appeal from an administrative agency."); § 1-23-610(B) ("[An appellate] court may not substitute its judgment for the judgment of the [ALC] as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact."); id. (stating, however, when reviewing an ALC decision, an appellate court "may reverse or modify the decision if the substantive rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the finding, conclusion, or decision is: (a) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (b) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (c) made upon unlawful procedure; (d) affected by other error of law; (e) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or (f) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion"); Torrence, 373 S.C. at 594 n.4, 646 S.E.2d at 870 n.4 ("[I]f [inmates] prove true their allegation that [SCDC] removes any of the money remitted by the private industry sponsor and then disburses the percentages listed in section 24-3-40 [of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2021)] based on the lower rate, [SCDC] would be in violation of the plain language of the statute which directs it to disburse the money based on the gross wages."); Gatewood v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 416 S.C. 304, 317 n.8, 785 S.E.2d 600, 607 n.8 (Ct. App. 2016) (noting our supreme court addressed "gross wages" as used in section 24-3-40 in the footnote in Torrence and finding our supreme court "viewed the amount paid by the industry sponsor to SCDC as the gross wages").

As to issue 5, we hold the ALC properly relied on the footnote in ...