This court, like the district court, reviews an administrative 

decision for an abuse of discretion or error of law. Knapp v. State, Dep't of 

Prisons, 111 Nev. 420, 423, 892 P.2d 575, 577 (1995); see also NRS 

233B.135(3). We review pure questions of law de novo, but will give 

deference to the agency's decision concerning a question of fact if it is 

supported by substantial evidence. Knapp, 111 Nev. at 423, 892 P.2d at 

577. "Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable person could 

accept as adequately supporting a conclusion." Vredenburg v. Sedgwick 

CMS, 124 Nev. 553, 557 n.4, 188 P.3d 1084, 1087 n.4 (2008) (internal 

quotation omitted). Having reviewed appellant's arguments and the 

record on appeal, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the 

hearing officer's determination that respondents actions did not warrant 

the imposed suspensions and that ,the hearing officer made no errors of 

law. 

As an initial matter, appellant asserts that the hearing officer 

applied the wrong standard of review and that the hearing officer should 

have deferred to the agency's disciplinary decision because it was 

supported by substantial evidence. Contrary to appellant's contention, the 

hearing officer generally does not defer to the appointing authority's 

decision, but instead must take a new and impartial view of the evidence 

and assess, among other things, the reasonableness of the discipline. 

Knapp, 111 Nev. at 424, 892 P.2d at 577-78; see also NRS 284.390(1) 

(explaining that the hearing officer "determine[s] the reasonableness" of a 

state employee's dismissal, demotion, or suspension); NAC 284.798 ("The 

hearing officer shall make no assumptions of innocence or guilt but shall 

be guided in his or her decision by the weight of the evidence as it appears 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 
Li NOEIMMUNE 

to him or her at the hearing."). Thus, we find no error in the standard of 

review applied by the hearing officer. 

Next, appellant contends that the hearing officer erred by 

failing to consider certain hearsay evidence. Respondents, however, argue 

that the hearing officer appropriately found that the hearsay evidence 

lacked credibility. The administrative record reveals that there was no 

objective evidence regarding the events at issue here, and that the hearing 

officer had to make his determination based on the testimony of multiple 

witnesses and the documents submitted, including investigation reports 

completed by various entities. Those investigation reports relied on the 

testimony of the patient who alleged the misconduct, two other patients 

who were present at the time of the incident, and multiple Desert Willow 

staff members, including respondents. While appellant argues that the 

hearing officer failed to consider the hearsay evidence presented in the 

reports, the hearing officer's decision indicates otherwise, as it specifically 

notes that "[h]earsay evidence is admissible at this administrative 

hearing. . . . However, the hearing officer is not bound to accept it as 

credible and determine[s] the weight to be given to each element of 

evidence." The hearing officer determined that respondents were credible 

witnesses, and it is apparent that he therefore gave more weight to 

respondents' testimony, even though the investigative reports had 

substantiated the patient's claims. Appellant has not demonstrated that 

the hearing officer failed to consider the evidence before him, and it was 

within the hearing officer's purview to determine the credibility of these 

witnesses and the weight of the evidence presented. See Nellis Motors v. 

State, Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 124 Nev. 1263, 1269-70, 197 P.3d 1061, 

1066 (2008) (explaining that on judicial review, this court will not reweigh 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

3 
SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

Parraguirre 

4 

the evidence, reassess witness credibility, or substitute the administrative 

agency's judgment with our own). 

Finally, appellant asserts that the hearing officer committed 

an error of law by determining that the lack of objective or direct evidence 

of an injury to the patient was relevant and corroborated respondents' 

testimony. In response, respondents argue that the lack of injury 

supported their testimony that they did not inappropriately restrain the 

patient. While the X-ray presented demonstrates that there was no 

observable injury to the patient's arm, it does not necessarily show 

whether respondents physically restrained the patient. Nevertheless, we 

conclude that the hearing officer's decision should not be disturbed as we 

will not reweigh the evidence presented to the hearing officer and 

substantial evidence in the administrative record supports the hearing 

officer's ultimate finding of no misconduct. See Knapp, 111 Nev. at 423, 

892 P.2d at 577; Nellis Motors, 124 Nev. at 1269-70, 197 P.3d at 1066. 

For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that the hearing 

officer did not abuse his discretion or commit an error of law in the 

administrative decision. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order 

denying appellant's petition for judicial review. See Knapp, 111 Nev. at 

424-25, 892 P.2d at 577-78 (setting forth the standard of review for this 

court when reviewing an administrative officer's decision). 

It is so ORDERED. 

J. 

Hardesty 
cc: Hon. Timothy C. Williams, District Judge 

Carolyn Worrell, Settlement Judge 

Attorney General/Las Vegas 

Angela J. Lizada 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

5