Glisson, M.D. v. State Board of Medical Examiners

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

Dr. Brenton D. Glisson, M.D., Appellant,

v.

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

Respondent.

Appeal From Richland County

John D. McLeod, Administrative Law Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-513

Submitted November 2, 2009 – Filed
November 5, 2009

AFFIRMED

J.
Falkner Wilkes, of Greenville, for Appellant.

Kenneth
P. Woodington, Patrick D. Hanks and Marvin Frierson, all of Columbia, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  In this medical disciplinary proceeding,
Dr. Brenton D. Glisson asserts the Administrative Law Court (ALC) erred in affirming
the decision of the State Board of Medical Examiners of the South Carolina
Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation to revoke his medical license for
committing misconduct in violation of Sections 40-47-200(F)(6), (7), and (8) of
the South Carolina Code and Regulations 81-60(A), (C), and (D) of the Rules and
Regulations of the Board of Medical Examiners.  We affirm the order of the ALC pursuant
to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities:  S.C. Dep't of
Labor, Licensing and Regulation v. Girgis, 332 S.C. 162, 167-69, 503 S.E.2d
490, 492-93 (Ct. App. 1998) (finding adequate notice was provided where the
complaint set forth a statement of the issues involved); S.C. Code Ann. §
1-23-320(B)(4) (Supp. 2005) (requiring a more definite and detailed statement
of the charges upon application by the respondent); S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610(B)
(Supp. 2008) (the court may not substitute its judgment for that of the
administrative law judge on questions of fact, but may reverse the decision if
it is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial
evidence); Osman v. S.C. Dep't of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation, 382
S.C. 244, 250, 676 S.E.2d 672, 676 (2009) (affirming the Board of Medical
Examiner's decision to impose public reprimand where substantial evidence
supported the Board's findings that physician violated the rules of ethical
conduct and that public reprimand was warranted as a sanction); Rule 103(a),
SCRE, (error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes
evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected); Conner v.
City of Forest Acres, 363 S.C. 460, 476, 611 S.E.2d 905, 913 (2005)
(holding error in the exclusion of evidence was harmless where consideration of
the wrongly excluded evidence would not have impacted the result of the trial).

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS,
PIEPER, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.