Groce v. SCPEBA

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

Elvis G. Groce, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Public Employee Benefit Authority,
South Carolina Retirement Systems, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2018-000949

Appeal From The Administrative Law Court
Deborah Brooks Durden, Administrative Law Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2021-UP-079
Submitted January 1, 2021 – Filed March 10, 2021

AFFIRMED

Elvis G. Groce, of Greenville, pro se.

Melissa Ann Alexander and Justin Richard Werner, both
of the South Carolina Public Employee Benefit
Authority, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Elvis Groce, pro se, appeals the Administrative Law Court's (the
ALC's) order granting South Carolina Public Employee Benefit Authority's (S.C.
PEBA's) summary judgment motion and the ALC's order denying Groce's motion
for reconsideration. We find the ALC's decision to grant S.C. PEBA's summary
judgment motion and deny Groce's motion for reconsideration is supported by
substantial evidence and the ALC properly declined to extend the statutory
deadline for disability retirement benefits under section 9-1-1540(B)(2) of the
South Carolina Code (2019). We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the
following authorities: Sanders v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 379 S.C. 411, 417, 665
S.E.2d 231, 234 (Ct. App. 2008) ("In an appeal of the final decision of an
administrative agency, the standard of appellate review is whether the AL[C]'s
findings are supported by substantial evidence. Although [the appellate] court
shall not substitute its judgment for that of the AL[C] as to findings of fact, [it]
may reverse or modify decisions which are controlled by error of law or are clearly
erroneous in view of the substantial evidence on the record as a whole. In
determining whether the AL[C]'s decision was supported by substantial evidence,
[the appellate] court need only find, considering the record as a whole, evidence
from which reasonable minds could reach the same conclusion that the AL[C]
reached." (citations omitted)); Waters v. S.C. Land Res. Conservation Comm'n, 321
S.C. 219, 226, 467 S.E.2d 913, 917 (1996) ("[T]he burden is on appellants to prove
convincingly that the agency's decision is unsupported by the evidence."); S.C.
Code Ann. § 1-23-610(B) (Supp. 2020) ("The review of the administrative law
[court]'s order must be confined to the record."); Sloan v. Friends of the Hunley,
Inc., 369 S.C. 20, 25, 630 S.E.2d 474, 477 (2006) ("In reviewing the grant of
summary judgment, [an appellate court] applies the same standard that governs the
trial court under Rule 56, SCRCP: summary judgment is proper when there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law."); id. ("On appeal, all ambiguities, conclusions, and inferences
arising in and from the evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to the
non-moving party."); S.C. Code Ann. § 9-1-1540(B)(2) ("A member whose
application for disability retirement benefits was received by the [South Carolina
Retirement System] after December 31, 2013, is considered disabled if the member
qualifies for the payment of Social Security disability benefits and is eligible for
benefits pursuant to this section upon proof of the disability, provided that the date
of disability established by the Social Security Administration falls within one year
after the last day the member was employed by a covered employer in the [South
Carolina Retirement System]. The member shall submit to the retirement [South
Carolina Retirement System] the Social Security Award Notice certifying the date
of entitlement for disability benefits as issued by the Social Security
Administration."); Hodges v. Rainey, 341 S.C. 79, 85, 533 S.E.2d 578, 581 (2000)
("Whe[n] the statute's language is plain and unambiguous, and conveys a clear and
definite meaning, the rules of statutory interpretation are not needed and the court
has no right to impose another meaning.").
AFFIRMED.1

LOCKEMY, C.J., and KONDUROS and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

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