Opinion ID: 1258425
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: arbitrary, capricious or fraudulent

Text: OTC next claims the Commission's disparate treatment of Ash and OTC was arbitrary. An administrative agency acts arbitrarily or capriciously when its action is unreasonable, irrational, wilful, and does not result from a sifting process. Perkins v. Department of Human Servs., 106 N.M. 651, 655, 748 P.2d 24, 28 (Ct.App. 1987); Garcia v. New Mexico Human Servs. Dep't, 94 N.M. 178, 179, 608 P.2d 154, 155 (Ct.App. 1979) (quoting Olson v. Rothwell, 28 Wis.2d 233, 239, 137 N.W.2d 86, 89 (1965), reversed on other grounds, 94 N.M. 175, 608 P.2d 151 (1980)). The Commission separately evaluated the public need evidence presented by Ash and OTC, contrary to the law stated above. The Commission then found public need supported only Ash's application. Once a public need was shown, the Commission had no rational basis for denying OTC's application for failure to show public need for its services. It appears that once the determination of no mutual exclusivity was made, the Commission did not thereafter consider the consolidated record in denying OTC's application in finding nos. 5, 6, 9 and 10. However, in finding no. 12, the Commission found, based on the record of the Ash application, that OTC's application was not consistent with public convenience and necessity. If the Commission refused to look at the consolidated record on public need when it would help OTC while looking at the consolidated record on public convenience and necessity when it would hurt OTC, such decision making is clearly arbitrary. We conclude the Commission's decision was arbitrary.