Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Appellants Larry and Jeannie Boiter were injured when the motorcycle they were riding collided with a car driven by Nancy Kochenower at an intersection. The red light signal bulb for the road Ms. Kochenower was traveling on had burned out earlier that day. The Boiters suffered significant injuries. They settled with Ms. Kochenhower for her policy limits and sued Respondents the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) and the South Carolina Department of Public Safety (SCDPS), alleging negligence in their failure to prevent the accident. At trial, a jury found in favor of the Boiters and awarded them a total of $1.875 million. Respondents filed motions for "judgment notwithstanding the verdict," for a new trial, and to reduce the amount of the verdict pursuant to the state's Tort Claims Act. In response, the Boiters filed a motion to challenge the constitutionality of the two-tier cap in the Tort Claims Act. In the alternative, the Boiters argued that Respondents' negligence constituted two separate occurrences of negligence under the Act (one for each Appellant), and as such, were entitled to separate damages awards. The circuit court denied all parties' motions, and found that there was only one occurrence of negligence. The court reduced the damages to $600,000. Upon careful consideration of the arguments and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court affirmed part and reversed part of the trial court's order. The Court found that the two-tier statutory cap on damages is constitutional, but that more than one occurrence of negligence occurred at the time of the accident. The Court remanded the case for reconsideration of the damages award.

This case involves the State's "working retiree program," and the propriety of its withholding retirement contributions from eligible members who returned to work with the state prior to July, 2005. Before that time, the program allowed employees to retire, then after a break, be re-hired and receive retirement benefits and a salary of up to $50,000 per year without having to pay into the pension plan. The State was ordered to refund any contributions made since July, 2005 by program members. In 2005, the State Retirement System Preservation and Investment Reform Act amended the program to require retired members pay the employee contribution as if they were active members but without accruing additional service credit. The State appealed the circuit court's order to refund the contributions. The retirees challenged the change in the program, arguing that it was unlawful for the State to change the terms of the working retiree program after the retirees "irreversibly retired" with the understanding that contributions to the pension plan would not be required. Upon careful consideration of the arguments and legal authority, the Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's holding with respect to the State's return of contributions since 2005. The Court found that the Legislature enabled the State to take the contributions when it amended the program by Act in 2005. The Court dismissed the Retirees' challenge to the State Retirement System Preservation and Investment Reform Act, finding no merit in their argument.

The Supreme Court reversed the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and Administrative Law Court's (ALC) decision against Appellant Peter Brown. Appellant is a Medicaid recipient who is disabled and mentally retarded. Appellant qualified for a program that allowed him to move from an intermediate care facility and into a supervised living facility for people with mental disabilities. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services waived the statutory requirement that individuals with mental disabilities live in an institution to have Medicaid pay for the associated expenses in the supervised living arrangement. In 2005, the center informed Appellant that it would terminate Appellant's 12-hour weekly one-on-one service that had allowed him to remain at the center and out of the institution. Appellant appealed to the DHHS; the hearing officer found that the one-on-one service was not eligible for Medicaid under the waiver because Appellant could not prove the service was necessary to keep him out of the institution. Appellant appealed to the ALC, and the ALC affirmed the DHHS hearing officer's decision. The Supreme Court, in review of the case found that the hearing officer did not have jurisdiction to hear Appellant's appeal, and found the ALC applied an incorrect legal standard. Accordingly, the Court vacated the ALC's order and remanded the case back to DHHS for an additional hearing.