Stuart M. Andrews, Jr. and Jennifer I. Cooke, of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough and Patricia Logan Harrison, all of Columbia, for Appellant. William H. Davidson, II and Kenneth P. Woodington, of Davidson & Lindemann, of Columbia, for Respondent.

This appeal arises out of the Administrative Law Court’s affirmance of the denial of Medicaid benefits for mental retardation or a related disability. Appellant raises six issues to the Court: (1) whether the Supremacy Clause requires Respondent to accept the Social Security Administration’s diagnosis of mental retardation when making its Medicaid eligibility determination; (2) whether the hearing officer erred by considering evidence outside of the record; (3) whether the hearing officer erred by not giving controlling weight to the diagnoses of Appellant’s treating physicians; (4) whether the cut-off for the developmental period of mental retardation as it pertains to Medicaid benefits is twenty-two years old or eighteen years old; (5) whether the hearing officer applied the proper standard to determine whether Appellant has a related disability; and (6) whether the hearing officer violated Appellant’s due process rights.

Robert E. Stepp, Roland M. Franklin, Jr., Amy L. B. Hill and Tina Cundari, of Sowell, Gray, Stepp & Laffitte, L.L.C., David K. Avant and Justin R. Werner, of South Carolina Retirement Systems, all of Columbia, for Appellants/Respondents. A. Camden Lewis, Keith M. Babcock and Ariail E. King, of Lewis and Babcock, L.L.P and Richard A. Harpootlian, all of Columbia, Gene M. Connell, of Kelahar, Connell & Conner, P.C., of Surfside Beach and Brana J. Williams, of Conway, for Respondents/Appellants.

In this case, the Court will decide whether the trial court erred in ordering the State be estopped from withholding retirement contributions from the certified class of working retirees, and that the State must return all contributions previously held. This Court will also determine whether the trial court erred in finding that forms signed by the Retirees stating that retirement contributions would not be withheld did not form a contract between the State and Retirees.

Beacham O. Brooker, Jr. and Natalie J. Moore, of Columbia, for Appellant. Edward D. Sullivan, Christian D. Stegmaier and Amy L. Neuschafer, of Collins & Lacy, of Columbia, for Respondent.

In this case, SCDOT appeals the master in equity’s grant of summary judgment in favor of respondent Carolina Chloride. Specifically, SCDOT appeals the master’s finding that its actions constituted a taking.

James M. Griffin and Margaret N. Fox of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott and Assistant Attorney General Mark R. Farthing, of Columbia, for Respondent. Daniel A. Speights, C. Alan Runyan and A. Gibson Solomon, of Speights & Runyan, of Hampton, for Amicus Curiae, Elizabeth K. Gooding.

Appellant challenges his forgery conviction, alleging the trial court erred in: (1) failing to dismiss the indictment or grant his motion for a directed verdict as the prosecution was barred by double jeopardy; (2) refusing to grant his motion for a directed verdict because the State failed to present evidence of the elements of forgery; (3) denying one of his requests to charge; (4) failing to grant a new trial; and (5) failing to conduct a restitution hearing and awarding restitution that was not limited to the actual amount of financial loss resulting from the offense for which Appellant was convicted.

Mitchell Willoughby, John M. S. Hoefer and Benjamin P. Mustian, of Willoughby & Hoefer, PA, of Columbia, for Appellant. Florence P. Belser, Jeffrey M. Nelson and Nanette S. Edwards, of Columbia, for Respondent.

Appellant, Utilities Services of South Carolina, a provider of water and wastewater services, appeals the Public Service Commission’s denial of its request for a rate increase.

Heath Preston Taylor, of West Columbia and Katherine Carruth Goode, of Winnsboro, for Appellant. Mark Steven Barrow of Sweeny, Wingate & Barrow, of Columbia, for Respondents.

This case concerns whether a physician has a duty to a third party for misdiagnosis of a patient that leads to criminal proceedings against the third party.

O. Grady Query and Michael W. Sautter, of Query, Sautter, Gliserman and Price, LLC, of Charleston, for Appellant. Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Chief of Prosecution Division Jennifer D. Evans and Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., of Columbia, for Respondent.

Appellant appeals his convictions for securities violations, obtaining property by false pretenses, and conspiracy based on the following arguments: (1) a spectator’s contact with a juror denied him a fair trial; (2) the state grand jury did not have subject matter jurisdiction over two counts in the indictment; (3) section 14-7-1820 violates the ex post facto clause of the South Carolina and United States Constitutions; and (4) his sentence was disproportionate in relation to that of the co-conspirators.

Kevin A. Hall and M. Todd Carroll, of Columbia, for Appellant. J. Kershaw Spong, of Robinson, McFadden & Moore, of Columbia, for Respondent, Branch Banking and Trust Company of South Carolina. Sharon and James Umbarger, of West Columbia, pro se Respondents.

This is an appeal from an order granting summary judgment in a foreclosure dispute.

Robert E. Bogan and Rachel D. Erwin, of Blythewood, for Appellant. Heath Preston Taylor, of West Columbia, for Respondent.

After the suppression of evidence based on alleged Miranda violations, a magistrate directed a verdict of not guilty in favor of Rebecca Lippard on a charge of driving under the influence. The State appealed, and the circuit court affirmed. The State again appeals, arguing the circuit court erred in ruling the magistrate entered a valid directed verdict. The State asserts a directed verdict may be entered only after jeopardy has attached and the State's evidence has been presented, which did not occur in this case.

Glenn Walters, of Orangeburg, for Plaintiff. Brian Quisenberry, Carol B. Ervin and Stephen L. Brown, of Young Clement Rivers, LLP, of Charleston, for Defendant.

In this certified question from the United States District Court, the Court considers whether certain protections in the South Carolina Teacher Employment and Dismissal Act extend to an administrator.

Danny C. Crowe, Shannon F. Bobertz and R. Hawthorne Barrett, of Turner, Padget, Graham & Laney, P.A., of Columbia, for Appellant. Ronald K. Wray and James M. Dedman, IV, of Gallivan, White & Boyd, PA, of Greenville, for Respondent. Gray T. Culbreath, of Collins & Lacy, of Columbia for amicus curiae, Association of American Railroads.

A municipal judge ruled Norfolk Southern Railway Company violated a City of Cayce ordinance that declares train trestles and bridges bearing rust or graffiti to be public nuisances. The circuit court ruled the municipal nuisance ordinance was preempted by federal law. The City of Cayce appeals, arguing (1) the circuit court erred in reversing the municipal court conviction where federal law does not preempt enforcement of the ordinance, (2) the city properly enacted the amended version of its public nuisance ordinance, (3) the railway's arguments regarding a taking are without merit, and (4) the purported procedural irregularities relating to the issuance of the summonses did not prejudice the railway.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott and Assistant Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, of Columbia, for Appellant. Harry Leslie Devoe, Jr., of New Zion, Steven Smith McKenzie, of Coffey, Chandler & Kent, of Manning, Deborah J. Butcher, of The Camden Law Firm, of Camden, and Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia, for Respondents.

The State is arguing that certain evidence should not have been suppressed.

Mark D. Chappell and W. Hugh McAngus, Jr., of Chappell, Smith & Arden, of Columbia, and David L. Hood, of Georgetown, for Appellant. Andrew F. Lindemann, of Davidson & Lindemann, of Columbia, for Respondent.

This appeal questions the validity of a workers’ compensation set-off provision in an employer-purchased uninsured motorist endorsement.

William O. Sweeny, III and William R. Calhoun, Jr., of Sweeny Wingate & Barrow, PA, of Columbia, for Appellant. Samuel Darryl Harms, of Greenville, for Respondent.

This case concerns whether a meaningful offer of underinsured motorist coverage was made as articulated in State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Wannamaker; whether Appellant should be allowed a conclusive presumption based on Section 38-77-350 of the South Carolina Code; and whether Respondent waived his right to claim underinsured motorist benefits.

Thomas A. Pendarvis, of Beaufort, for Appellant. Pope D. Johnson, III, of Johnson and Barnette, LLP, of Columbia, for Respondent.

Attorney Mitchell Byrd appeals from the grant of summary judgment in favor of former opposing counsel. In the underlying suit, Byrd sought damages for opposing counsel’s alleged failure to protect a lien.