Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2011-UP-521 - Sarrio v. SCDHEC

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

Charles Sarrio, Dolly Sarrio and daughter, Joey Matthews, Fran Matthews and children, Robert Randle, J.E. Parnell, Catherine Parnell and children, Barbara Kolesar, Millard Rogers and Concerned Citizens of Sparrow Swamp, Appellants,

v.

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control and Will Ward Farm, Respondents.


Appeal from the Administrative Law Court
John D. McLeod, Administrative Law Judge


Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-521 
Submitted November 1, 2011 – Filed December 1, 2011


AFFIRMED


Robert Guild, of Columbia, for Appellants.

Leon Carroll Harmon, of Greenville, and Stephen Philip Hightower, of Columbia, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM:  In this contested permit case, Appellants argue the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (the Department) failed to properly carry out its regulatory mandate in issuing Will Ward Farm a permit to construct and operate an agricultural animal facility.  We find no error of law in the Department's decision to issue Will Ward Farm's permit and, therefore, affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:  S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610(B) (Supp. 2010) (providing the standard of review for decisions of the Administrative Law Court (ALC)); Original Blue Ribbon Taxi Corp. v. S.C. Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 380 S.C. 600, 604, 670 S.E.2d 674, 676 (Ct. App. 2008) ("The decision of the [ALC] should not be overturned unless it is unsupported by substantial evidence or controlled by some error of law."); id. at 605, 670 S.E.2d at 676 ("Substantial evidence, when considering the record as a whole, would allow reasonable minds to reach the same conclusion as the [ALC] and is more than a mere scintilla of evidence.").

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, PIEPER, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.


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