“Since the substantial evidence issue is an issue of law, the reviewing court has the greater expertise, and [OAR’s] decision is therefore accorded less deference.”
How later courts described this case
- “Since the substantial evidence issue is an issue of law, the reviewing court has the greater expertise, and [OAR’s] decision is therefore accorded less deference.”
- since substantial evidence is an issue of law, the agency decision is accorded less deference because reviewing court has greater expertise
- "a hearing examiner's decision [is] entitled to greater consideration if the examiner, as in this case, has heard live testimony and observed the demeanor of the witnesses."
- hearing examiner’s decision is entitled to special weight when examiner “has heard live testimony and observed the demeanor of the witnesses”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NEWMAN, Associate Judge,
concurring:
I join the court’s opinion but write separately to address one case discussed therein, Dankman v. District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics, ante at 106. I joined Judge Mack’s dissent in that case, 443 A.2d at 527-33, contending that the regulation, as construed by this court, was in violation of the statute. I am still of that view. However, I agree with the opinion of the court in this case that the Director of the Department of Employment Services could not qualify a valid rule into oblivion.