Opinion ID: 2631069
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Correct Standard of Review Is Substantial Evidence

Text: ¶ 35 Having determined that the correct standard of review is substantial evidence, we pause to consider its requirements. Substantial evidence exists when the factual findings support more than a mere scintilla of evidence . . . though something less than the weight of the evidence. Grace Drilling Co. v. Bd. of Review of Indus. Comm'n, 776 P.2d 63, 68 (Utah Ct.App.1989) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted, alteration in original). An administrative law decision meets the substantial evidence test when a reasonable mind might accept as adequate the evidence supporting the decision. Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). ¶ 36 In order to determine whether a decision is supported by substantial evidence, the reviewing court must consider the whole record before the lower court. Whitear v. Labor Comm'n, 973 P.2d 982, 984 (Utah Ct.App.1998) (citing Utah Code Ann. § 63-46b-16(4)(g) (1997)). Whole record review considers the evidence in support of the administrative finding, as well as evidence that detracts from the finding. Id. To aid the appellate court in conducting a whole record review, the party challenging the factual findings must marshal all of the evidence and demonstrate that, despite the facts supporting the decision, the findings are not supported by substantial evidence. Grace Drilling Co., 776 P.2d at 68. ¶ 37 When we consider the actual substance of the court of appeals' ruling that Martinez could not perform the essential functions of his past employment, the effect of a different standard of review becomes clear. For instance, it does appear, as the court of appeals stated, that the Commission simply ignored the impact of the sitting and standing limitation. Martinez v. Media-Paymaster Plus, 2005 UT App 308, ¶ 13, 117 P.3d 1074. However, with the statement The Commission ignored a significant portion of an evaluation that it explicitly accepted, id. (emphasis added), the court of appeals implicitly acknowledged that some of the Commission's factual findings were supportive of its ultimate conclusion. This acknowledgment has different implications under a substantial evidence standard; if more than a scintilla of the evidence supports the conclusion, then the Commission's ruling should remain intact. ¶ 38 As a natural consequence of selecting the wrong standard of review, the court of appeals reweighed the facts that formed the basis of the Commission's conclusion that other work was reasonably available under the guise of applying the facts to the law. For example, the court of appeals stated that the Labor Commission ignored Dr. Bertsch's cross-examination testimony that no jobs in the current market could accommodate Mr. Martinez's limitations. Id. ¶ 15. The Commission's order, however, merely gave more weight to the portion of her testimony that was more favorable to its factual findings. In fact, Dr. Bertsch testified that she had contacted many local fast-food restaurants with open positions and their managers expressed a willingness to hire someone with Martinez's limitations. Although recognizing that some task modification would be required, the Commission found that fast-food work requires the completion of a variety of tasks . . . performed by a crew of several employees. It further found that Martinez's education, work experience, and language ability would increase his employability. This evidence supports the Commission's conclusion that Media [had] presented persuasive evidence that many employers in the fast-food business have work immediately available for someone with Mr. Martinez' background and abilities. ¶ 39 In sum, we find that the court of appeals should have applied a substantial evidence standard of review to the questions of whether Martinez could perform the essential functions of his prior employment and whether other jobs were reasonably available to him. Because it applied the incorrect standard of review, the court of appeals inappropriately reweighed the Commission's factual findings under the guise of reviewing mixed questions of law and fact. Consequently, we remand for a determination under the correct standard of review.