Greg German v. SCDEW

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

Greg German, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Employment and
Workforce, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2021-000490

Appeal From The Administrative Law Court
S. Phillip Lenski, Administrative Law Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-434
Submitted November 1, 2022 – Filed December 7, 2022

AFFIRMED

Greg German, pro se, of Myrtle Beach.

Paul R. Famolari, of South Carolina Department of
Employment and Workforce, of Columbia, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Greg German appeals an order from the Administrative Law
Court (ALC) affirming the South Carolina Department of Employment and
Workforce's (DEW's) decision to deny unemployment benefits for a six-week
period based on German's failure to timely file weekly claims. We affirm pursuant
to Rule 220(b), SCACR.

We hold the ALC did not err in affirming the DEW's decision regarding German's
unemployment benefits because German did not file timely weekly certifications
for benefits and he did not show good cause for failing to do so. See Nucor Corp.
v. S.C. Dep't of Emp. & Workforce, 410 S.C. 507, 514, 765 S.E.2d 558, 562 (2014)
("Judicial review of disputes arising from the DEW is governed by the
Administrative Procedures Act (APA)."); Stubbs v. S.C. Dep't of Emp. &
Workforce, 407 S.C. 288, 292, 755 S.E.2d 114, 116 (Ct. App. 2014) ("The ALC
reviews final agency decisions . . . in its appellate capacity 'as prescribed in
[section 1-23-380 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2022)].'" (quoting S.C. Code
Ann. § 1-23-600(E) (Supp. 2022))); id. ("[T]he ALC, sitting in its appellate
capacity, may not make its own factual findings."); § 1-23-380(5) ("The [ALC]
may not substitute its judgment for the judgment of the agency as to the weight of
the evidence on questions of fact. The [ALC] may affirm the decision of the
agency or remand the case for further proceedings. The [ALC] may reverse or
modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced
because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: (a) in
violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (b) in excess of the statutory
authority of the agency; (c) made upon unlawful procedure; (d) affected by other
error of law; (e) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial
evidence on the whole record; or (f) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by
abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion."); Nucor Corp.,
410 S.C. at 517, 765 S.E.2d at 563 ("Under the deferential substantial evidence
standard of review, [an appellate court is] constrained to affirm the ALC's factual
findings when supported by some evidence in the record."); Friends of Earth v.
Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 387 S.C. 360, 366, 692 S.E.2d 910, 913 (2010) ("Substantial
evidence is not a mere scintilla; rather, it is evidence which, considering the record
as a whole, would allow reasonable minds to reach the same conclusion as the
agency."); S.C. Code Ann. § 41-35-110(1) (2021) (stating an "unemployed insured
worker is eligible to receive benefits with respect to a week only if the [DEW]
finds he . . . has made a claim for benefits with respect to that week pursuant to
regulations prescribed by the [DEW]"); S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 47-32(A) (2011)
("Claimants for unemployment compensation benefits shall be required to report
and file claims weekly in a timely manner and in accordance with such procedures
as the [DEW] may adopt . . . . A week claimed is considered timely if received
within fourteen (14) calendar days of the claim week ending date."); id. ("The
claims representative in the [DEW] office may accept any late filing of a continued
weekly claim for good cause shown.").
We also hold German's arguments that the DEW had a principal-agent relationship
with him, the DEW improperly withheld federal benefits, and the ALC's order
failed to mention "arbitrary" and "capricious" are not preserved for review. See
Doe v. Doe, 370 S.C. 206, 212, 634 S.E.2d 51, 54 (Ct. App. 2006) ("To preserve
an issue for appellate review, the issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal,
but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court."); Home Med. Sys.,
Inc. v. S.C. Dep't of Revenue, 382 S.C. 556, 562, 677 S.E.2d 582, 586 (2009)
(stating issue preservation rules apply in administrative appeals); id. at 562-63, 677
S.E.2d at 586 (holding that if the ALC does not rule on an issue in its final order, a
party must file a Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion requesting a ruling to preserve the
issue for this court's review); Young v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Env't Control, 383
S.C. 452, 458, 680 S.E.2d 784, 787 (Ct. App. 2009) (stating the ALC generally
cannot consider an issue not raised to and ruled upon by the administrative agency
from which an appeal is taken).

AFFIRMED. 1

KONDUROS, HEWITT, and VINSON, JJ., concur.

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