SCDHEC v. Platt

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

South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control, Respondent,

v.

Stuart Platt, Appellant.

Appeal From Richland
County

Marvin F.
Kittrell, Chief Administrative Law Judge

Unpublished Opinion
No. 2009-UP-160

Heard March 18,
2009 – Filed March 31, 2009

AFFIRMED

Lake E. Summers, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Ashley C. Biggers, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  In this appeal from the
administrative law court (ALC), Stuart Platt asserts the ALC erred in finding
he failed to exercise the degree of supervision required of a certified
Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) Paramedic and suspending his EMT
certification for a period of fifteen months.  On appeal, Platt asserts defects
in DHEC's investigation into the purported misconduct contributed to errors by
the ALC during the contested case hearing and in the final ALC decision.  Platt
further asserts the ALC erred in denying certain testimony and in shifting the
burden of proof from DHEC to Platt.

We affirm the findings of the ALC pursuant to Rule
220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities:  South Carolina Coastal
Conservation League v. South Carolina Dept. of Health and Envtl. Control,
380 S.C. 349, 361, 669 S.E.2d 899, 905 (Ct. App. 2008) ("Decisions of the
ALC judge should not be overturned by the reviewing court unless they are
unsupported by substantial evidence or controlled by some error of law."); Grant v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 319 S.C. 348, 353, 461 S.E.2d
388, 391 (1995) (stating the ALC's findings are supported by substantial
evidence if, looking at the record as a whole, there is evidence from which
reasonable minds could reach the same conclusion the ALC reached).  

As to the alleged procedural errors:  Gamble v.
Int'l Paper Realty Corp. of South Carolina, 323 S.C. 367, 373, 474 S.E.2d
438, 441 (1996) (the decision to admit or exclude evidence is within the trial
court's sound discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of
discretion); State v. Schmidt, 288 S.C. 301, 303, 342 S.E.2d 401, 402-03
(1986) (stating the court of appeals generally will not review alleged error of
the exclusion of testimony unless a proffer of testimony is properly made on
the record); First Sav. Bank v. McLean, 314 S.C. 361, 363, 444 S.E.2d
513, 514 (1994) (holding an issue will be deemed abandoned when the appellant
fails to provide arguments or supporting  authority).

Accordingly, the order of the ALC is

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., PIEPER, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.