Court Opinion

ID: 9576970
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:30:26.184729+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:19:46.474489
License: Public Domain

Finney, Justice,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. In my opinion, the Commission acted well within its powers in promulgating 25A S.C. Code Ann. Reg. 67-701 requiring that all appeals be filed on a Form 30, and providing that timely service of a Form 30 is a jurisdictional prerequisite to an appeal. Since petitioner’s letter was not on a Form 30 and did not contain the grounds for appeal,1 there was no appeal filed within the jurisdictional time limit and the Court of Appeals properly vacated the orders.
The Commission is authorized to promulgate regulations implementing statutes. The regulations must be consistent with the statutes being implemented. S.C. Code Ann. § 42-3-30 (1985). Regulation 67-701 implements S.C. Code Ann. § 42-17-50 (1985 and Supp. 1993), which provides an award shall be reviewed “if an application for review is made” within fourteen days. Unlike the majority, I conclude that the Form 30 promulgated by the Commission implements the statutory mandate of “an application for review.” Further, essentially all *492litigation before the Commission is conducted pursuant to approved forms, use of which are mandatory. See 25A S.C. Code Ann. Reg. 67-203(A). To suggest, as the majority does, that composing forms and mandating their use is an improper alteration or addition to a statute, especially a statute specifically referring “an application for review,” is untenable. Further, the regulation’s provision that the fourteen-day period is jurisdictional simply implements the statutory language, and is proper. See Chapman v. Foremost Dairies, 249 S.C. 438, 154 S.E. (2d) 845 (1967).
I would affirm.

See Reg. 67-701(A)(3).