William Ray Ward v. SCDC

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.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

William Ray Ward, Respondent,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2018-001325

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

Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-372
Submitted September 21, 2022 – Filed October 12, 2022

AFFIRMED

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

Julius Holman Hines, of Hines & Gilsenan LLC, of
North Charleston, for Respondent.

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 William Ray Ward'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 contract between SCDC
and the private industry sponsor was not properly included in the record but then
contradictorily relied upon it when it ruled on Ward's claim; (2) the procedure by
which the ALC fashioned its ruling was imbued with evidentiary error because
SCDC's rulings on Ward's grievances, in which it referenced the contract between
SCDC and the private industry sponsor, constituted legitimate evidence in the
record to support its argument; (3) the procedure by which the ALC fashioned its
ruling was imbued with evidentiary error because Ward did not meet the burden
mandated by our supreme court from 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 Ward's back
pay claim to SCDC; (5) the ALC erroneously relied on dicta in Torrence when
reversing its denial of Ward's back pay claim; (6) the ALC erroneously found the
workers' compensation premium that SCDC charged the private industry sponsor
was part of Ward's gross wages; (7) the ALC erroneously found the social security
withholding payment that SCDC charged the private industry sponsor was part of
Ward's gross wages; and (8) the ALC erroneously found the "SCDC Surplus Fund
Amount" that SCDC charged the private industry sponsor was part of Ward'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 social security
withholding payment, workers' compensation premium, and the "SCDC Surplus
Fund Amount," constituted Ward's gross wages. See Kiawah Dev. Partners, II v.
S.C Dep't of Health & 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

1
373 S.C. 586, 594 n.4, 646 S.E.2d 866, 870 n.4 (2007).
2
The facts of the case are not in dispute.
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 Torrence when
determining whether the workers' compensation premium, social security
withholding payment, and "SCDC Surplus Fund Amount" were part of Ward's
gross wages. See Sherlock Holmes Pub, Inc. v. City of Columbia, 389 S.C. 77, 82,
697 S.E.2d 619, 621 (Ct. App. 2010) (expressing reluctance to disregard rulings
that were dicta when the rulings were directly on point); id. (noting "those who
disregard dictum, either in law or in life, do so at their peril" (quoting Yaeger v.
Murphy, 291 S.C. 485, 490 n.2, 354 S.E.2d 393, 396 n.2 (Ct. App. 1987))).

As to issue 1, we hold SCDC failed to show prejudice from any potential error in
the ALC finding the contract was not properly included in the record but
subsequently relying on it when ruling on Ward's claim because SCDC attached
the contract to its brief to the ALC as support for its arguments. See Synder's Auto
World, Inc. v. George Coleman Motor Co., 315 S.C. 183, 186, 434 S.E.2d 310, 312
(Ct. App. 1993) (stating an appellant is required to show both error and prejudice
in order for an appellate court to reverse a court's ruling); see also Erickson v.
Jones St. Publishers, LLC, 368 S.C. 444, 476, 629 S.E.2d 653, 670 (2006) ("[A]
party may not complain on appeal of error . . . which his own conduct has
induced.").

AFFIRMED. 3

GEATHERS, MCDONALD, and HILL, JJ., concur.

3
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.