Opinion ID: 1497450
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Substantial Evidence Test Generally

Text: The DCAPA, § 1-1509(e), requires that every agency decision shall be accompanied by written [f]indings of fact and conclusions of law . . . supported by and in accordance with the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence. [5] Inherent in this substantial evidence test are three requirements: (1) there must be findings on each contested issue of fact, § 1-1509(e); see Dietrich v. Board of Zoning Adjustment, D.C.App., 293 A.2d 470, 472-73 (1972); (2) the decision must rationally follow from the facts; i. e., there must be a `rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.' Brewington v. Board of Appeals & Review, D.C.App., 299 A.2d 145, 147 (1973) (quoting Burlington Trunk Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168, 83 S.Ct. 239, 9 L.Ed.2d 207 (1962)); and (3) there must be sufficient evidence supporting each finding, i. e., `more than a mere scintilla . . . such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate. . . .' Vestry of Grace Parish v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, D.C.App., 366 A.2d 1110, 1112 (1976) (citation omitted). [6] This three-fold test was articulated succinctly over 40 years ago by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: When a decision is [1] accompanied by findings of fact, the reviewing court can decide [2] whether the decision reached by the court or commission follows as a matter of law from the facts stated as its basis, and also [3] whether the facts so stated have any substantial support in the evidence. [ Saginaw Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, 68 App.D.C. 282, 287, 96 F.2d 554, 559, cert. denied, 305 U.S. 613, 59 S.Ct. 72, 83 L.Ed. 391 (1938).] [7] In reviewing an agency's findings and conclusions, it is important for the court to keep in mind that the agency reaches its decision by moving along a continuum from unassimilated, often contradictory testimony to findings of fact to conclusions of law, which are usually expressed in terms of the statutory criteria governing the decision. The difference between such findings and conclusions, therefore, is one of degree  from specific to general  not a difference of kind. For this reason, conclusions of law are sometimes referred to as ultimate facts. Miller v. Commission on Human Rights, D.C.App., 339 A.2d 715, 719 n.5 (1975); Saginaw Broadcasting Co., supra, 68 App.D.C. at 287-89, 96 F.2d at 559-61. Although the record of a proceeding may disclose a substantial amount of evidence which supports the agency's decision, a recurring problem in agency decision-making has been a fatal omission of fact-finding along the continuum between testimony and final decision. As this court noted in one of its first cases dealing with the problem, [s]ometimes, . . . an agency merely summarizes the testimony of all the witnesses, and then (implying that the testimony in ways not particularized supports its conclusions) sets forth the ultimate conclusions of fact and law in statutory language. Dietrich, supra at 473 n.4. [8] In Dietrich, therefore, we responded to this fact-finding gap by underscoring the first requirement of § 1-1509(e): there must be one or more affirmative, written findings on each [material] contested issue of fact. [9] The court cannot properly fill the gap itself by inferring findings on a party's objections through inspection of the record, the agency's other findings, and the ultimate decision. Dietrich, supra at 472. We concluded, rather, that the agency's own findings must support the end result in a discernible manner, and the result reached must be supported by subsidiary findings of basic facts on all material issues. [ Id. at 473 (emphasis added).] Earlier the same year we had made the same point: an agency must make findings of fact of a basic or underlying nature necessary to a determination of the ultimate facts, [ i. e., conclusions of law] usually stated in terms of the statutory criteria Palmer v. Board of Zoning Adjustment, D.C.App., 287 A.2d 535, 538 (1972) (emphasis added). And again: the DCAPA requires findings of basic facts, the essential facts on which the decision rests. The Commission must show on what it relied in reaching its decision. Miller, supra at 719 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). See generally Aquino v. Knox, D.C.Mun.App., 60 A.2d 237, 240 (1948); Saginaw Broadcasting Co., supra 68 App.D.C. at 287-89, 98 F.2d at 559-61. In summary, the DCAPA substantial evidence test requires (1) the agency to make written findings of basic facts on all material contested issues; (2) these findings, taken together, must rationally lead to conclusions of law (ultimate facts) which, under the governing statute, are legally sufficient to support the agency's decision; and (3) each basic finding must be supported by evidence sufficient to convince reasonable minds of its adequacy.