Ratliff v. SC Department of Labor, Licensing, & Regulation

THIS OPINION HAS NO
PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY
PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

James W.
Ratliff, III, DVM, Respondent,

v.

South Carolina
Department of Labor, Licensing, & Regulation, South Carolina Board of
Veterinary Medical Examiners, Appellant.

Appeal From Administrative Law Court

 Carolyn C. Matthews, Administrative Law
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-250

Submitted April 1, 2008 – Filed May 7,
2008

REVERSED

Kenneth P.
Woodington, of Columbia, for Appellants.

James W. Ratliff,
III, DVM, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: 
James W. Ratliff, III, DVM, petitioned the Administrative Law Court (ALC),
appealing the order of the South Carolina State Board of Veterinary Medical
Examiners (the Board).  The ALC reversed the Board’s order.  The Board
appeals.  We reverse.[1]

FACTS

Dr.
Ratliff practiced veterinary medicine at the Pet Vac Express in the Greenville area.  Ratliff operated Pet Vac Express’ mobile veterinary clinic on Saturdays. 
The Board held a hearing based on a report from a member of the public against three
veterinarians, including Ratliff.  The Board filed a Complaint against the
veterinarians, alleging, inter alia, the veterinarians failed to ensure that
vaccines were properly maintained. 

After
a hearing, the Board concluded Ratliff violated South Carolina Code Section
40-69-140(12) by not adequately ensuring the vaccines were properly acquired
and/or maintained.[2] 
The Board issued a public reprimand and ordered Ratliff to pay a civil penalty
of $250.  Ratliff appealed to the ALC.  On appeal, the ALJ found no substantial
evidence to support the Board’s order and reversed.  The Board appeals.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The South Carolina Administrative Procedures Act (APA) governs
contested proceedings before the Board.  S.C. Code Ann. §§ 40-1-160 (2001) & 40-69-160
(Supp. 2007).  The standard for judicial review, after an exhaustion of administrative remedies, is also governed by
the APA. S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380
(Supp. 2007).  Pursuant
to the APA, a reviewing court may reverse or modify an agency decision which is either affected by error of law or clearly erroneous
in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence in the record.
S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(A)(5)(Supp. 2007).  Review by an administrative law
judge, heard in the appellate jurisdiction of the ALC, is governed by this
standard.  S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(B)(Supp. 2007).  This court, on appeal
from the ALC in its appellate capacity, applies the same standard of review.  See Dorman v. Dep’t of Health & Envtl. Control, 350 S.C. 159, 164, 565
S.E.2d 119, 122 (Ct. App. 2002) (defining scope of review of second appellate
review).

LAW/ANALYSIS

The Board argues
the ALJ erred in reversing its findings against Ratliff.  We agree.

Section 40-69-140(12)
of the South Carolina Code enables the Board to reprimand a veterinarian for
“engaging in conduct determined by the board to be incompetent or negligent in
the practice of veterinary medicine.”  S.C. Code Ann. § 40-69-140(12) (2006)
(amended by 2006 Act No. 294, § 1, eff. May 31, 2006).[3] 
Regulation 120-7.8(c) governs the practice of veterinary medicine relating to
vaccines and requires that “[t]emperature control shall be maintained for all
drugs and biologics.”  S.C. Code Reg. 120-7.8(c) (Rev. 1997).

We find substantial
evidence to support the Board’s sanction
against Ratliff.  Ratliff testified that
he and Tabor “pretty much” knew when the vaccines would arrive based on the
order date.  However, the evidence also indicates the vaccines were sent to a postal delivery site and
remained there until Tabor took them to her home.  At best, the delivery site
offered only an interior location out of the elements, and there is no evidence
indicating such an environment would provide the necessary temperature control required
by Regulation 120-7.8(c).  Based on the
limited record[4] and our limited standard of review in APA cases, we find the ALJ erred in
reversing the Board’s findings.  Accordingly, the order on appeal is

REVERSED.

ANDERSON, SHORT, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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

[2]  The Board dismissed the complaint
against one of the veterinarians and made findings similar to those made
against Ratliff as to the third veterinarian.

[3]  The Board relied on the prior version of
the code, section 40-69-140(12) (amended by 2006 Act No. 294, § 1, eff. May 31,
2006).  See S.C. Code Ann. § 40-690-110 (12) (2007).

[4]  The Record on Appeal is limited to
excerpts from the transcript of the proceeding before the Board, and Ratliff failed
to file a respondent’s brief with this Court.