O'Neal v. S.C. Department of Social Services

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

O'Neal v. S.C. Department of Social Services

437 S.E.2d 127, 313 S.C. 223, 1993 S.C. App. LEXIS 139

CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina

DecidedJune 24, 1993

Docket2057

StatusPublished

This text of 437 S.E.2d 127 (O'Neal v. S.C. Department of Social Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

O'Neal v. S.C. Department of Social Services, 437 S.E.2d 127, 313 S.C. 223, 1993 S.C. App. LEXIS 139 (S.C. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Dino O’Neal was terminated from his job at the South Carolina Department of Social Services (DSS) for alleged client abuse, disruption of the operations of the department, and failure to maintain a harmonious relationship with the public. The State Employee Grievance Committee (the Grievance Committee) issued its final decision upholding the termination for client abuse and the and the circuit court affirmed. O’Neal appeals. We affirm.

O’Neal argues the circuit court erred in failing to find DSS and the Grievance Committee were in default on the appeal to the circuit court. This argument is without merit because they were not required to file responsive pleadings to appeals under the Administrative Procedures Act. S.C. CODE ANN. § 1-23-380 (1986).

Moreover, O’Neal’s argument that the circuit court erred in failing to state its findings of fact and conclusions of law in its order is also without merit. Section 1-23-380 only requires the circuit court to determine whether the final decision of the Grievance Committee was supported by substantial evidence. See Cook v. S.C. Dept of Highways and Pub. Transp., — S.C. —, 420 S.E. (2d) 847, 849 (1992) (“It was not incumbent upon the trial judge to separately address [225]*225in writing every issue raised by appellant, as long as the trial judge could ascertain that the administrative rulings below were proper

We need not consider O’Neal’s final argument that the Grievance Committee improperly admitted evidence of earlier incidents concerning O’Neal’s actions. The Grievance Committee based its decision on its finding that O’Neal’s actions toward a certain client, whose complaint prompted his termination, were so improper as to constitute client abuse. Even if the Grievance Committee should not have considered evidence of earlier incidents, a single incident of client abuse, such as the one that occurred here, is sufficient to make termination appropriate under the South Carolina Department of Social Services Personnel Administration Policy and Procedure Manual.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam:

Dino O’Neal was terminated from his job at the South Carolina Department of Social Services (DSS) for alleged client abuse, disruption of the operations of the department, and failure to maintain a harmonious relationship with the public. The State Employee Grievance Committee (the Grievance Committee) issued its final decision upholding the termination for client abuse and the and the circuit court affirmed. O’Neal appeals. We affirm.

O’Neal argues the circuit court erred in failing to find DSS and the Grievance Committee were in default on the appeal to the circuit court. This argument is without merit because they were not required to file responsive pleadings to appeals under the Administrative Procedures Act. S.C. CODE ANN. § 1-23-380 (1986).

Moreover, O’Neal’s argument that the circuit court erred in failing to state its findings of fact and conclusions of law in its order is also without merit. Section 1-23-380 only requires the circuit court to determine whether the final decision of the Grievance Committee was supported by substantial evidence. See Cook v. S.C. Dept of Highways and Pub. Transp., — S.C. —, 420 S.E. (2d) 847, 849 (1992) (“It was not incumbent upon the trial judge to separately address [225]*225in writing every issue raised by appellant, as long as the trial judge could ascertain that the administrative rulings below were proper

We need not consider O’Neal’s final argument that the Grievance Committee improperly admitted evidence of earlier incidents concerning O’Neal’s actions. The Grievance Committee based its decision on its finding that O’Neal’s actions toward a certain client, whose complaint prompted his termination, were so improper as to constitute client abuse. Even if the Grievance Committee should not have considered evidence of earlier incidents, a single incident of client abuse, such as the one that occurred here, is sufficient to make termination appropriate under the South Carolina Department of Social Services Personnel Administration Policy and Procedure Manual.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

437 S.E.2d 127, 313 S.C. 223, 1993 S.C. App. LEXIS 139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oneal-v-sc-department-of-social-services-scctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack