Vetro v. SCDLL

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

Sam Wayne
Vetro, M.D., Appellant,

v.

South Carolina
Department of Labor Licensing and Regulation, South Carolina State Board of
Medical Examiners, Respondent.

Appeal From Richland County

John McLeod, Administrative Law Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-381

Heard May 19, 2010 – Filed August 4, 2010   

AFFIRMED

Clifford O. Koon, Jr., of Columbia, for Appellant.

Kenneth P. Woodington, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: This
case is decided pursuant to Rule 220, SCACR.  Sam W. Vetro appeals the
revocation of his license to practice
medicine by the South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners.  The Administrative
Law Court affirmed the Board’s ruling.  We affirm.

1. Vetro
claims that the Board failed to follow procedures outlined in regulations
81-12.5 and 81-13 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2009), that he was lured
into waiving his rights to formal hearing procedures, and that the Board
violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.[1]  However, because these issues were not raised to and ruled on by the Board, we
find these issues are not preserved for appellate review.  See Brown
v. S.C. Dep't of Health and Envt'l. Control, 348 S.C. 507, 519-20, 560
S.E.2d 410, 417 (2002).

2. Vetro
contends that the Board made erroneous factual findings.  In a Memorandum of
Agreement, Vetro admitted all allegations in the Complaint and that his conduct
violated section 40-47-200(F)(3), (6), and (8) of the South Carolina Code
(2001).[2] 
Thus, the Board’s factual determination to revoke, based on these admitted
allegations, is supported by substantial evidence.  See Lark v. Bi-Lo,
Inc., 276 S.C. 130, 136-7, 276 S.E.2d 304, 307 (1981). 

3. Finally, Vetro
argues that the sanction imposed was too harsh and constitutes an abuse of
discretion.  The Board has the power to revoke or suspend a medical license.  Boggs
v. State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 288 S.C. 144, 146, 341 S.E.2d 635, 636
(1986).  Vetro admitted to all allegations in the complaint and that his
conduct violated subsections (3), (6), and (8) of 40-47-200(F) of the South
Carolina Code.  A finding under any of these subsections is
"'[m]isconduct' which constitutes grounds for revocation, suspension, or
restriction of a license or limitation on or discipline of a licensee. . .
."  S.C. Code Ann. § 40-47-200(F) (2001).  Therefore, the decision
to revoke Vetro’s medical license was within the Board’s discretion.

AFFIRMED.

FEW,
C.J., THOMAS and PIEPER, JJ., concur.

[1]  42 U.S.C. § 12101 (2009).

[2] Chapter 47 of Title 40 of the South Carolina Code has
been rewritten. Provisions similar to those previously found at section
40-47-200(F) are now codified at section 40-47-110 of the South Carolina Code (Supp.
2009).