Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2012-UP-234 - Anonymous No. 1 & 2 v. SCDLLR

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,

v.

South Carolina Department of Labor Licensing and Regulation, State Board of Dentistry, Respondents.


Appeal From Administrative Law Court
Carolyn C. Matthews, Administrative Law Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No.  2012-UP-234 
Heard March 20, 2012 – Filed April 18, 2012


AFFIRMED


Desa Ballard and Stephanie Weissenstein, both of West Columbia, for Appellants.

Kenneth P. Woodington and Patrick Donell Hanks, both of Columbia, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: Anonymous No. 1 and No. 2, dental hygienists, appeal from the administrative law court's (ALC)  reconsideration of sections 40-15-80(B), -82(1), and -110(A)(10)  of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2011) and determination that no separate standard of care exists for hygienists working in the public school setting. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:  S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610(B) (Supp. 2011) ("The court may not substitute its judgment for the judgment of the administrative law judge as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact."); Spartanburg Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Oncology & Hematology Assocs. of S.C., LLC, 387 S.C. 79, 89, 690 S.E.2d 783, 788 (2010) ("Judicial review of administrative agency decisions is therefore 'limited to a determination of whether they are supported by substantial evidence.'" (quotingRoper Hosp. v. Bd. of S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 306 S.C. 138, 140, 410 S.E.2d 558, 559 (1991))); Carolina Alliance for Fair Emp't v. S.C. Dep't of Labor, Licensing, & Regulation, 337 S.C. 476, 490, 523 S.E.2d 795, 802 (Ct. App. 1999) ("[A] statute must receive a practical, reasonable, and fair interpretation consonant with the purpose, design, and policy of the lawmakers."); Santee Cooper Resort v. S.C. Pub. Serv. Comm'n., 298 S.C. 179, 184, 379 S.E.2d 119, 122 (1989) ("Words used in a statute should be taken in their ordinary and popular significance unless there is something in the statute requiring a different interpretation.").

AFFIRMED.

PIEPER, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.