Scottv.S.C. Pub. Emp. Benefit Auth.

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of AppealsJan 4, 2019
Appellate Case No. 2017-000780 (S.C. Ct. App. Jan. 4, 2019)

Appellate Case No. 2017-000780 Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-003

01-04-2019

L'Tonya Scott, Appellant, v. South Carolina Public Employee Benefit Authority, Employee Insurance Program, Respondent.

Melissa Leila Louzri, of Greenville, for Appellant. Michael T. Brittingham, of Nexsen Pruet, LLC, of Columbia; and James T. Hedgepath, of Nexsen Pruet, LLC, of Greenville, both for Respondent.


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. Appeal From The Administrative Law Court
Deborah Brooks Durden, Administrative Law Judge

AFFIRMED

Melissa Leila Louzri, of Greenville, for Appellant. Michael T. Brittingham, of Nexsen Pruet, LLC, of Columbia; and James T. Hedgepath, of Nexsen Pruet, LLC, of Greenville, both for Respondent. PER CURIAM : Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Allen v. S.C. Pub. Emp. Benefit Auth., 411 S.C. 611, 615, 769 S.E.2d 666, 668 (2015) ("A party who has exhausted all administrative remedies available within an agency and who is aggrieved by an [administrative law court's (ALC's)] final decision is entitled to judicial review."); S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610(B) (Supp. 2018) ("The court of appeals may affirm the decision or remand the case for further proceedings; or, it 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."); id. ("The court may not substitute its judgment for the judgment of the [ALC] as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact."); MRI at Belfair, LLC v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 379 S.C. 1, 6, 664 S.E.2d 471, 474 (2008) ("As to factual issues, judicial review of administrative agency orders is limited to a determination whether the order is supported by substantial evidence."); Murphy v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 396 S.C. 633, 639, 723 S.E.2d 191, 194-95 (2012) ("When finding substantial evidence to support the ALC's decision, the [c]ourt need only determine that, based on the record as a whole, reasonable minds could reach the same conclusion."); DuRant v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 361 S.C. 416, 420, 604 S.E.2d 704, 707 (Ct. App. 2004) ("The mere possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent a finding from being supported by substantial evidence."); Wilson v. State Budget & Control Bd. Emp. Ins. Program, 374 S.C. 300, 305, 648 S.E.2d 310, 313 (Ct. App. 2007) ("While we recognize . . . the Social Security Administration found otherwise, we remain cognizant that as an appellate court, we must affirm an agency's decision when substantial evidence supports the decision."). AFFIRMED. KONDUROS, MCDONALD, and HILL, JJ., concur.

We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR. --------