Vetro v. SCDLL

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 Sam Wayne Vetro, M.D., Appellant, v. South Carolina Department of Labor Licensing and Regulation, South Carolina State Board of Medical Examiners, Respondent. Appeal From Richland County John McLeod, Administrative Law Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-381 Heard May 19, 2010 – Filed August 4, 2010 AFFIRMED Clifford O. Koon, Jr., of Columbia, for Appellant. Kenneth P. Woodington, of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: This case is decided pursuant to Rule 220, SCACR. Sam W. Vetro appeals the revocation of his license to practice medicine by the South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners. The Administrative Law Court affirmed the Board’s ruling. We affirm. 1. Vetro claims that the Board failed to follow procedures outlined in regulations 81-12.5 and 81-13 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2009), that he was lured into waiving his rights to formal hearing procedures, and that the Board violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.[1] However, because these issues were not raised to and ruled on by the Board, we find these issues are not preserved for appellate review. See Brown v. S.C. Dep't of Health and Envt'l. Control, 348 S.C. 507, 519-20, 560 S.E.2d 410, 417 (2002). 2. Vetro contends that the Board made erroneous factual findings. In a Memorandum of Agreement, Vetro admitted all allegations in the Complaint and that his conduct violated section 40-47-200(F)(3), (6), and (8) of the South Carolina Code (2001).[2] Thus, the Board’s factual determination to revoke, based on these admitted allegations, is supported by substantial evidence. See Lark v. Bi-Lo, Inc., 276 S.C. 130, 136-7, 276 S.E.2d 304, 307 (1981). 3. Finally, Vetro argues that the sanction imposed was too harsh and constitutes an abuse of discretion. The Board has the power to revoke or suspend a medical license. Boggs v. State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 288 S.C. 144, 146, 341 S.E.2d 635, 636 (1986). Vetro admitted to all allegations in the complaint and that his conduct violated subsections (3), (6), and (8) of 40-47-200(F) of the South Carolina Code. A finding under any of these subsections is "'[m]isconduct' which constitutes grounds for revocation, suspension, or restriction of a license or limitation on or discipline of a licensee. . . ." S.C. Code Ann. § 40-47-200(F) (2001). Therefore, the decision to revoke Vetro’s medical license was within the Board’s discretion. AFFIRMED. FEW, C.J., THOMAS and PIEPER, JJ., concur. [1] 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (2009). [2] Chapter 47 of Title 40 of the South Carolina Code has been rewritten. Provisions similar to those previously found at section 40-47-200(F) are now codified at section 40-47-110 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2009).