Anonymous v. SCDLLR

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

Anonymous No. 1
R.D.H., and Anonymous No. 2 R.D.H., Appellants,

v.

South Carolina
Department of Labor Licensing and Regulation, State Board of Dentistry, Respondents.

Appeal from Richland County

 Carolyn C. Matthews, Administrative Law
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-504

Heard October 7, 2009 – Filed November 4,
2009

REMANDED

Desa Ballard and P. Christopher Smith, Jr., of West Columbia, for
Appellants.

Kenneth P. Woodington
and Lynne W. Rogers, of Columbia, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM:  Anonymous Dental Hygienists No. 1 and No.
2 (Hygienists) appeal from the final order of the administrative law court
(ALC) affirming the decision of the state Board of Dentistry (Board) to issue
public, yet anonymous, sanctions against Hygienists for failing to meet the
appropriate standard of care for dental hygienists in South Carolina, namely
for placing sealant over clinically obvious decay on the teeth of several
children in a school-based public health dental program.[1] 
We remand to the administrative law judge pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, for
reconsideration of the standard of care pursuant to Sections 40-15-80(B),
40-15-82(1), and 40-15-110(A)(10) of the South Carolina Code and the following
authorities:  S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610(B) (Supp. 2008) ("The court of
appeals may . . . remand the case for further proceedings . . . ."); Major
v. S.C. Dep't. of Prob., Parole, & Pardon Servs., __S.C.__, 682 S.E.2d
795, 797 (2009) (ALC decision should not be overturned unless it is controlled
by some error of law); David v. McLeod Reg'l Med. Ctr., 367 S.C. 242,
248, 626 S.E.2d 1, 4 (2006) ("The plaintiff must provide expert testimony
to establish both the required standard of care and the defendants' failure to
conform to that standard. . . ."); Futch v. McAllister Towing of
Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (holding an
appellate court need not review remaining issues when its determination of a
prior issue is dispositive of the appeal).  

REMANDED.

HUFF, THOMAS, and
PIEPER, JJ., concur.

[1] In a letter
dated October 8, 2009, and received by the Court of Appeals on October 12,
2009, counsel for Hygienists asked to argue against precedent.  Hygienists'
motion is hereby denied.