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,
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Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-504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
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. 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).
HUFF, THOMAS, and PIEPER, JJ., concur.
 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.