The opinion
SCHWAB, C.J.,
specially concurring.
Judicial review in this case was pursuant to former ORS 678.121(3), which provided:
if* * * Qn appeai the court shall consider the record certified by the secretary of the board and such other evidence or testimony that either party may offer and introduce * * (Emphasis supplied.)
The above statute has been repealed, Oregon Laws 1971, ch 734, sec 21, p 1786, and judicial review of proceedings before the State Board of Nursing is now pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, ORS ch 183.
While former ORS 678.121 is not identical to the •statute in question in Stehle v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 229 Or 543, 368 P2d 386 , 97 ALR2d 1359 (1962), it is so substantially similar in its import as to require the same interpretation with regard to the scope of judicial review. Stehle held that the scope of review at the circuit court level was de novo and implied that the scope of review before the appellate court was for error of law, stating:
if* * * ipijg triai court found that the evidence *363 failed * * *. We cannot say that this finding constituted error as a matter of law.” 229 Or at 554 .
In the case at bar there was a conflict in the evidence as to all factual allegations contained in the charges against Fern Ward. The trial judge found that none was supported by satisfactory evidence. It follows that, regardless of our interpretation of the evidence and regardless of the legal sufficiency of the charges, the judgment of the court below must be affirmed.
Fort, J., joins in this specially concurring opinion.