Protection and Advocacy for the People with Disabilities, Inc.; M.J.B. on behalf of and as next friend of J.B.; C.B.B. on behalf of and as guardian of P.B.; G.C. and L.C. on behalf of and as next friend of A.E.; J.H. on behalf of and as next friend of A.J.; G.M. on behalf of and as next friend of E.M.; N.M. on behalf of and as guardian of E.J.M.; R.P. on behalf of and as guardian of S.P.; R.R. and J.R. on behalf of and as guardians of K.D.R.; and J.K. on behalf of and as guardian of S.S.; Appellants,
South Carolina Department of Disabilities and Special Needs; Dr. Beverly Buscemi, in her official capacity as Director of the South Carolina Department of Disabilities and Special Needs; and Nancy Banor, Deborah McPherson, Christine Sharp, Rick Huntress, Fred Lynn, Harvey Shiver, and Kelly Hanson Floyd, as Commissioners of the South Carolina Department of Disabilities and Special Needs, Respondents
Heard January 7, 2016.
Appeal From Richland County. G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court Judge. Appellate Case No. 2014-000244.
Steven W. Hamm and C. Jo Anne Wessinger Hill, both of Richardson Plowden & Robinson, PA, of Columbia, for Appellants.
William H. Davidson, II and Kenneth P. Woodington, both of Davidson & Lindemann, PA, of Columbia, for Respondents.
LOCKEMY, J. FEW, C.J., and KONDUROS, J., concur.
Protection and Advocacy for the People with Disabilities, Inc. (P& A), et al. (collectively, Appellants), appeal the circuit court's grant of summary judgment for the South Carolina Department of Disabilities and Special Needs (DDSN), et al. (collectively, Respondents), arguing the court erred in (1) finding Appellants did not have standing; (2) failing to consider the fundamental purpose of the Declaratory Judgment Act; (3) ruling on the issue of binding norms; and (4) finding DDSN is not required to promulgate regulations. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
Appellants filed this action on April 7, 2007. Appellants include anonymous guardians/friends on behalf of eleven anonymous disabled individuals, and P& A, a private, nonprofit corporation established pursuant to federal and state law to advocate for the rights of people with disabilities.
In their complaint, Appellants asserted DDSN, a state agency established to provide services to citizens with disabilities and their families, failed to promulgate regulations as required by sections 44-20-220, 44-20-790, and 44-26-180 of the South Carolina Code. Appellants sought an order requiring DDSN to " promptly promulgate regulations governing the operation of the department and the employment of professional staff and personnel, and to obtain informed consent and to protect the dignity of the individual in research settings." In addition, Appellants asserted DDSN failed to promulgate regulations regarding " issues of critical concern to applicants and recipients of its services, including but not limited to eligibility for its services; appeal procedures; standards for the operation of its residential programs; procedures for its Human Rights Committees; and standards for research on human subjects." Appellants complained DDSN's failure to comply with the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) resulted in citizens and entities being " unable to seek information about its policies in the South Carolina Administrative Code, unable to determine their rights or receive or dispute DDSN decisions, and [unable to] participate in the rule making process . . . ." Appellants asserted they have been and will continue to be harmed as a result of DDSN's deficiencies, " through denial of services, inadequate services and unequal availability and quality of services, and lack of an appropriate grievance procedure." Appellants further complained about decisions in individual cases, such as claims that an individual was not eligible for autism services and an individual was not waitlisted for residential placement. Appellants did not ask the court to order any affirmative relief in any of their cases, other than requiring DDSN to promulgate regulations.
Appellants also filed a petition to allow the named plaintiffs in the action to proceed anonymously. The circuit court granted the motion, stating " identification of the individually named Plaintiffs potentially poses a risk of retaliatory denial of needed services which may result in physical or mental harm to the individually named Plaintiffs." According to Appellants, each of the named individual Appellants presented affidavits to the circuit court, which were subsequently sealed by the court.
Thereafter, on May 31, 2007, Respondents filed a motion to dismiss and a motion for a more definite statement. The circuit court denied both motions. Respondents subsequently filed an answer, denying for lack of information the specific facts regarding each of the anonymous individual Appellants. As an affirmative defense, Respondents challenged the standing of all of the Appellants. Respondents also denied DDSN had a duty to promulgate regulations.
Thereafter, both parties filed summary judgment motions. In September 2013, the circuit court granted summary judgment for Respondents and denied Appellants' motion. In granting Respondents' motion, the circuit court held there was " no evidence whatsoever before the [c]ourt as to the facts concerning the individual [Appellants]," and as a result, no evidence was presented of actual injury to any of Appellants and they lacked standing. The court also found Appellants' claims in this case, unlike the claims in public importance standing cases, require a case-bycase factual showing as to how specific plaintiffs are, or are not, affected by the absence of regulations in specific situations. The court further noted that while Appellants relied heavily on the Declaratory Judgment Act in their argument, parties seeking declaratory relief still must demonstrate a justiciable controversy. The circuit court held that even assuming Appellants had standing, their claims lacked substantive merit. The court found no statute required the promulgation of regulations in the subject areas of the lawsuit. The court declined to consider Appellants' argument that DDSN had improperly established binding norms because it was not pled in the complaint.
Appellants subsequently filed a Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion to reconsider. The circuit court denied the motion but modified its order to clarify that Appellants would not be precluded from raising issues related to binding norms ...