disciplinary penalty when he was deprived of the right to earn good-time credits, contravenes the federal and state constitutions. In my view, appellant was deprived of a liberty interest. When a claimant asserts that government action has wrongly deprived him of a liberty interest and the claim is fact intensive, a hearing to develop the factual basis of the claim is a necessary part of the review guaranteed by due process. Id. at 557-58, 94 S.Ct. 2963 (“This analysis as to liberty parallels the accepted due process analysis as to property. The Court has consistently held that some kind of hearing is required at some time before a person is finally deprived of his property interests.”); see also Kurschner v. City of Camden Planning Comm’n, 376 S.C. 165, 171, 656 S.E.2d 346, 350 (2008) (<HOLDING>). Thus, if a hearing is required to develop the
recognizing that due process requires a trialtype hearing for factspecific adjudicatory decisions by administrative agencies holding that due process requires a hearing appropriate to the nature of the case recognizing that administrative agencies lack to power to consider or determine constitutional issues holding that where state rules of civil procedure apply to courts of the state they do not apply to adjudicatory proceedings before state agencies recognizing that administrative agencies are not bound by rules of evidence