Anonymous No. 1 & 2 v. SCDLLR

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

Anonymous No.
1, R.D.H., and Anonymous No. 2, R.D.H., Appellants,

v.

South Carolina
Department of Labor Licensing and Regulation, State Board of Dentistry, Respondents.

Appeal From Administrative Law Court

Carolyn C. Matthews, Administrative Law
Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2012-UP-234 

Heard March 20, 2012 – Filed April 18,
2012

AFFIRMED

Desa Ballard and Stephanie Weissenstein, both
of West Columbia, for Appellants.

Kenneth P. Woodington and Patrick Donell
Hanks, both of Columbia, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: Anonymous No. 1 and No. 2, dental
hygienists, appeal from the administrative law court's (ALC)  reconsideration of
sections 40-15-80(B), -82(1), and -110(A)(10)  of the South Carolina Code
(Supp. 2011) and determination that no separate standard of care exists for
hygienists working in the public school setting. We affirm pursuant to Rule
220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:  S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610(B)
(Supp. 2011) ("The court
may not substitute its judgment for the judgment of the administrative law
judge as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact."); Spartanburg
Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Oncology & Hematology Assocs. of S.C., LLC, 387 S.C.
79, 89, 690 S.E.2d 783, 788 (2010) ("Judicial review of administrative
agency decisions is therefore 'limited to a determination of whether they are
supported by substantial evidence.'" (quotingRoper Hosp. v. Bd. of S.C. Dep't of Health
& Envtl. Control, 306
S.C. 138, 140, 410 S.E.2d 558, 559 (1991))); Carolina Alliance for Fair Emp't v. S.C. Dep't of Labor, Licensing, &
Regulation, 337 S.C. 476, 490, 523
S.E.2d 795, 802 (Ct. App. 1999) ("[A] statute must receive a practical,
reasonable, and fair interpretation consonant with the purpose, design, and
policy of the lawmakers."); Santee Cooper Resort v. S.C. Pub. Serv.
Comm'n., 298 S.C. 179, 184, 379 S.E.2d 119, 122 (1989) ("Words used in
a statute should be taken in their ordinary and popular significance unless
there is something in the statute requiring a different interpretation.").

AFFIRMED.

PIEPER, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.