Opinion ID: 1151164
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the method of compensation ordered by the corporation commission is pursuant to its authority and is sustained by the law and evidence.

Text: The appellants contend that the Commission's method of determining the compensation formula was unfair because it did not reduce the rate to be paid by the expenses of collection which the local exchange carriers incur in billing their customers. The Commission decided that the interexchange carriers should pay the rate which the local exchange carriers charge for intraLATA calls less the access charges paid by the interexchange companies. The order of the Commission reveals that it considered the argument of the appellees and rejected it. As we have stated in this opinion, article 9, § 20 of our Constitution provides that in a case not involving a constitutional issue, our review shall be judicial only and not extend further than to determine whether the Commission has regularly pursued its authority, and whether the findings and conclusions of the Commission are sustained by the law and substantial evidence. [9] Determining whether the Commission's findings are supported by substantial evidence does not require that the evidence be weighed, but only that the totality of the record be examined and the proof found to be more than mere scintilla. [10] The Commission's findings are presumed correct in matters it frequently adjudicates and in which it possesses expertise. [11] The Commission has wide discretion in the performance of its duties and this Court may not substitute its judgment on disputed questions of fact unless the findings are contrary to law or unsupported by substantial evidence. [12] Upon review of the totality of the record, we find that the compensation formula ordered by the Commission is supported by substantial evidence. We hold that the Commission determined the method of compensation pursuant to its authority and that the order is not contrary to the law or evidence.