Ellliiott Hatton 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

Elliott Hatton, Respondent,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2018-001322

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

Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-375
Submitted September 21, 2022 – Filed October 12, 2022

AFFIRMED

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 & 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

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.
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 the surplus fund amount were part of Hatton'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 contracts were not properly included in the record but
subsequently relying on them when ruling on Hatton's claim because SCDC
attached the contracts 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.