Opinion ID: 1721338
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did Cameron Telephone Make a Sufficient Showing to Support Certification?

Text: Since we hold that Cameron Telephone was required to meet the statutory requirements for certification, we must determine whether the commission erred in finding that it carried its burden of proof at the hearing. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the commission's determinations were reasonable, and the district court erred in reversing the commission's order granting Cameron Telephone a certificate. Louisiana R.S. 45:1503(C) provides: The commission shall not grant a certificate for a proposed radio common carrier operation or extension thereof which will be in competition with or duplication of any other radio common carrier unless it shall first determine that the existing service is inadequate to meet the reasonable needs of the public and that the person operating the same is unable to or refuses or neglects after hearing on reasonable notice to provide reasonable adequate service. This statute imposes a two-part test for certification: (1) that the existing service is inadequate to meet the reasonable needs of the public, and (2) that the person operating the existing service is unable to or refuses or neglects to provide reasonable adequate service. Southern Message Service v. Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 370 So.2d 874 (La.1979); Communications Inds. v. Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 260 La. 1, 254 So.2d 613 (1971). The party seeking certification bears the burden of proving both elements. Southern Message Service v. Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 520 So.2d 734 (La.1988). In support of its application, Cameron Telephone presented the testimony of four witnesses who had made use of Southern Message's services in the Lake Charles area either as answering service operators or as ultimate consumers such as an emergency room doctor and a fire alarm and sprinkler system operator. These witnesses testified that Southern Message's service had been inadequate for a number of reasons: failure to supply pagers to customers upon request, frequent outages of service, failure to provide backup service during outages, failure to notify or warn customers of outages, lack of service personnel in the area, and failure to pick up and repair defective pagers promptly. In opposition, Southern Message presented testimony by its officers and consultants that it had acquired a backup power system for use in emergencies, that it had continually upgraded its equipment, and that it had sufficient capital, personnel and equipment to adequately service the Lake Charles area. The company's officers admitted, however, that they had no full time maintenance or service personnel in the area. The officer witnesses claimed they had no knowledge of the persistent interruptions or other inadequacies to which the applicant's witnesses testified. On appeals from decisions of the Public Service Commission, it is not the function of the reviewing court to reweigh the evidence and substitute its own findings of fact for those of the commission. White v. Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 259 La. 363, 250 So.2d 368 (1971). Upon judicial review of the commission's determination of whether the applicant has made a showing that the public convenience and necessity is materially promoted by issuance of a certificate, a court will not upset the agency's finding unless it is based on an error of law or is one which the commission could not have found reasonably from the evidence. Southern Message Serv. v. Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 520 So.2d 734, 735 (La.1988); Miller Transporters, Inc. v. Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 518 So.2d 1018, 1020 (La.1988); M & G Fleet Serv. v. Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 443 So.2d 574, 575 (La.1983); Florane v. Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 433 So.2d 120, 123 (La. 1983); Dreher Contr. & Eqpt. Rental v. Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 396 So.2d 1265, 1266-67 (La.1981); Truck Serv., Inc. v. Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 263 La. 588, 268 So.2d 666, 667-68 (1972); Hearin Tank Lines v. Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 247 La. 826, 174 So.2d 644, 647 (1965). In our opinion the commission reasonably determined from all of the evidence that Southern Message's service had been inadequate because of its inability, refusal or neglect to meet the reasonable needs of the public. Where there is conflict in the testimony, as in the present case, the reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact by the commission should not be disturbed upon review, even though the court may feel that its own evaluations and inferences are as reasonable. Hearin Tank Lines v. Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm'n, supra ; cf. Rosell v. Esco, 549 So.2d 840 (La.1989).