Causey v. SC Budget and Control Board

THIS OPINION HAS NO
PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY
PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Lisa Kay Causey, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Budget and Control Board, South Carolina Retirement Systems, Respondents.

Appeal From the Administrative Law Court

 Marvin F. Kittrell, Administrative Law
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-598

Submitted October 1, 2008 – Filed October
17, 2008

AFFIRMED

Lisa
Kay Causey, pro se, for Appellant.

Justin R. Werner and David K. Avant, of Columbia,  for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: Lisa K. Causey appeals the denial of her claim for
disability retirement, arguing the Administrative Law Court (ALC) erred (1) in
finding the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the record
supported denial, (2) in assigning weight to expert testimony, and (3) in
excluding her medical literature as inadmissible hearsay.  Causey further
argues her inability to secure counsel placed her at an unconstitutional
disadvantage.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities. 

1.  As
to the question whether the ALC erred in finding the reliable, probative, and
substantial evidence on the record supported denial:  S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600(B) (Supp. 2007) (providing a
party who has exhausted administrative remedies and obtained a final agency
determination from an executive-branch agency may seek a contested case hearing
from the ALC); S.C. Code Ann. § 9-1-1540 (Supp. 2007) (rendering a member
eligible for disability retirement benefits when South Carolina Retirement
Systems, “after a medical examination of the member, certifies that the member
is mentally or physically incapacitated for the further performance of duty,
that the incapacity is likely to be permanent, and that the member should be
retired.”); Terry v. S.C. Dep’t of Health & Envtl. Control, 377 S.C.
569, 573, 660 S.E.2d 291, 293 (Ct. App. 2008) (“In administrative law cases,
the ALC serves as the fact-finder and is not restricted by the findings of the
administrative agency.”).  

2.  As
to whether the ALC erred in assigning weight to expert testimony:  In re Michael H., 360 S.C. 540, 546, 602 S.E.2d 729, 732 (2004) (“An issue may not be
raised for the first time on appeal.  In order to preserve an issue for appeal,
it must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial court.”).    

3.  As
to whether the ALC erred in excluding Causey’s medical literature as
inadmissible hearsay:  S.C. Code Ann. §
1-23-330(1) (2005) (requiring the ALC to exclude “[i]rrelevant, immaterial or
unduly repetitious evidence” from contested case hearings and otherwise follow
the South Carolina Rules of Evidence applicable in civil cases in the court of
common pleas); Rule 801(c), SCRE (“‘Hearsay’ is a statement, other than one
made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in
evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.”); Rule 803(18), SCRE (excluding
learned treatises from introduction as exhibits but providing a limited
exception for their admissibility when read into evidence during examination of
an expert witness). 

4.  As
to whether Causey’s inability to secure counsel placed her at an unconstitutional
disadvantage:  DuRant v. S.C. Dep’t of Health & Envtl. Control, 361
S.C. 416, 424-25, 604 S.E.2d 704, 709 (Ct. App. 2004) (holding constitutional
issues not raised to and ruled on by a lower court are not preserved for
appellate review). 

5.  As
to all remaining issues:  In re
Michael H., 360 S.C. 540, 546, 602
S.E.2d 729, 732 (2004) (“An issue may not be raised for the first time on
appeal.  In order to preserve an issue for appeal, it must be raised to and ruled
upon by the trial court.”); DuRant v. S.C.
Dep’t of Health & Envtl. Control,
361 S.C. 416, 424-25, 604 S.E.2d 704, 709 (Ct. App. 2004) (holding
constitutional issues not raised to and ruled on by a lower court are not
preserved for appellate review). 

AFFIRMED.

SHORT,
THOMAS, and PIEPER, JJ., concur. 

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to
Rule 215, SCACR.