The Department should have been affirmed because there is substantial record evidence to support its decision. Although the majority opinion correctly states the standard of review for a question of law, it ignores the fact that the circuit court specifically overruled findings of fact made by the agency and substituted its own for those of the agency. This court's standard of review of administrative appeals is clearly defined. We will overrule an agency's findings of fact only when they are clearly erroneous. The question is not whether there is substantial evidence contrary to the agency finding, but whether there is substantial evidence to support the agency finding.
Great weight is given to the findings made and inferences drawn by an agency on questions of fact.
Conclusions of law are given no deference and are fully reviewable. When reviewing evidence presented by deposition, we do not apply the clearly erroneous standard but review that testimony as though presented here for the first time. In other words, it is not burdened with a presumption in favor of the trial court's determination. Accordingly, it is our duty to review the evidence and determine the issues involved as though presented here in the first instance. In an administrative appeal, the trial court's decision below is based entirely on the written record from the agency.