Petitioner paid the entry fee and intended to ride Supreme Image in the show. Two Department of Agriculture veterinarians, Knowles and Riggins, responsible for monitoring the DQPs and compliance with the Act, then examined Supreme Image and determined that the horse was sore within the Act's definition. The veterinarians recorded their observations. The Administrator appealed the Initial Decision to the Department's judicial officer, who vacated the ALJ's decision and remanded, ordering the ALJ to reweigh the evidence of soring. Petitioner's appeal to the Department's judicial officer was denied, and this petition for review of the Department's final order followed.
Petitioner raises two arguments.
As to the first argument, petitioner urges us, as she did the Department, to reject the documentary evidence prepared by the Department's veterinarians and offered by the Administrator. The summary report, stating that the horse reacted repeatedly to the palpation with a pain response and diagraming the location of the soreness, was signed by both veterinarians. To be sure, at the hearing four years later, neither doctor had an independent recollection of the events. But contrary to petitioner's contention, administrative agencies are not barred from reliance on hearsay evidence. Four years does seem a long time to await an adjudication.