Opinion ID: 2631514
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: standard of review

Text: [¶ 32] In this appeal of the district court's appellate review of the OAH hearing examiner's administrative decision, we review the case as if it came to this Court directly from the hearing examiner. Although we do not afford deference to the district court's appellate decision, Ball v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 2010 WY 128, ¶ 19, 239 P.3d 621, 627 (Wyo.2010), the district court's decision is of help to this Court as an aid to our analysis and may reveal some factor not apparent to the parties but a subject of judicial discernment. Id., ¶ 19 n. 1, 239 P.3d at 627 n. 1. In the instant case, our judicial review is limited to those considerations specified in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A) and (E) (LexisNexis 2009): (c) To the extent necessary to make a decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action. In making the following determinations, the court shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error. The reviewing court shall: . . . . (ii) Hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to be: (A) Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law; . . . . (E) Unsupported by substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute. [¶ 33] In regard to these considerations, [w]e affirm an agency's findings of fact if they are supported by substantial evidence. Dale [ v. S & S Builders, LLC, 2008 WY 84], ¶ 22, 188 P.3d [554] at 561 [(Wyo.2008) ]. Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept in support of the agency's conclusions. Id., ¶ 11, 188 P.3d at 558, quoting Newman v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 2002 WY 91, ¶ 12, 49 P.3d 163, 168 (Wyo.2002), quoting State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety and Comp. Div. v. Jensen, 2001 WY 51, ¶ 10, 24 P.3d 1133, 1136 (Wyo.2001). We review an agency's conclusions of law de novo. Dale, ¶ 26, 188 P.3d at 561. We employ the arbitrary and capricious standard as a safety net against agency action that is contrary to law but not readily correctible under the other applicable standards of review. See id., ¶¶ 23-24, 188 P.3d at 561. Shelest v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 2010 WY 3, ¶ 7, 222 P.3d 167, 170 (Wyo.2010). One of the circumstances included in the arbitrary and capricious safety net concerns the hearing examiner's failure to provide appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law in the administrative decision. Alphin v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 2010 WY 39, ¶ 13, 228 P.3d 61, 66 (Wyo.2010). When we identify such a circumstance, we emphasize that: A hearing officer is required to support his conclusions with adequate findings of fact. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-110 (Lexis-Nexis 2005). A hearing officer has the duty to make findings of basic facts upon all of the material issues in the proceeding and upon which its ultimate findings of fact or conclusions are based. Unless that is done there is no rational basis for judicial review. Pan Am. Petroleum Corp. v. Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Comm'n, 446 P.2d 550, 555 (Wyo.1968). In order for this Court to have a rational basis upon which to conduct a review: All of the material evidence offered by the parties must be carefully weighed by the agency as the trier of the facts; conflicts in the evidence must be resolved, and the underlying or basic facts which prompt the ultimate conclusion on issues of fact drawn by the agency in sustaining the prima facie case made, or in rejecting it for the reason it has been satisfactorily met or rebutted by countervailing evidence, must be sufficiently set forth in the decision rendered. Id. at 557. Bush [ v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Comp. Div., 2005 WY 120], ¶ 9, 120 P.3d [176] at 180 [(Wyo. 2005)]; see also Decker v. State of Wyoming ex rel. Wyoming Medical Commission, 2005 WY 160, ¶ 27, 124 P.3d 686, 695 (Wyo.2005). Olivas v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 2006 WY 29, ¶ 13, 130 P.3d 476, 482-83 (Wyo.2006). [¶ 34] We have also cautioned that such failures at the administrative contested case hearing level cannot be cured by the parties' appellate briefing in this Court. Rodgers v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 2006 WY 65, ¶ 29, 135 P.3d 568, 579 (Wyo.2006). Indeed, in their appellate briefing, the parties' citations of evidence presented to the hearing examiner, but not included in the administrative decision, highlight that decision's deficiencies. Id. If the evidence were material, it should have been included in the findings of facts made by the hearing examiner. Id.