THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Respondent,

v.

Stuart Platt, Appellant.

Appeal From Richland County
Marvin F. Kittrell, Chief Administrative Law Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-160
Heard March 18, 2009 – Filed March 31, 2009

AFFIRMED

Lake E. Summers, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Ashley C. Biggers, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  In this appeal from the administrative law court (ALC), Stuart Platt asserts the ALC erred in finding he failed to exercise the degree of supervision required of a certified Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) Paramedic and suspending his EMT certification for a period of fifteen months.  On appeal, Platt asserts defects in DHEC's investigation into the purported misconduct contributed to errors by the ALC during the contested case hearing and in the final ALC decision.  Platt further asserts the ALC erred in denying certain testimony and in shifting the burden of proof from DHEC to Platt.

We affirm the findings of the ALC pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities:  South Carolina Coastal Conservation League v. South Carolina Dept. of Health and Envtl. Control, 380 S.C. 349, 361, 669 S.E.2d 899, 905 (Ct. App. 2008) ("Decisions of the ALC judge should not be overturned by the reviewing court unless they are unsupported by substantial evidence or controlled by some error of law."); Grant v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 319 S.C. 348, 353, 461 S.E.2d 388, 391 (1995) (stating the ALC's findings are supported by substantial evidence if, looking at the record as a whole, there is evidence from which reasonable minds could reach the same conclusion the ALC reached).  

As to the alleged procedural errors:  Gamble v. Int'l Paper Realty Corp. of South Carolina, 323 S.C. 367, 373, 474 S.E.2d 438, 441 (1996) (the decision to admit or exclude evidence is within the trial court's sound discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion); State v. Schmidt, 288 S.C. 301, 303, 342 S.E.2d 401, 402-03 (1986) (stating the court of appeals generally will not review alleged error of the exclusion of testimony unless a proffer of testimony is properly made on the record); First Sav. Bank v. McLean, 314 S.C. 361, 363, 444 S.E.2d 513, 514 (1994) (holding an issue will be deemed abandoned when the appellant fails to provide arguments or supporting  authority).

Accordingly, the order of the ALC is

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., PIEPER, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.