Opinion ID: 1179881
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: standard of review

Text: General appellate standards used by a reviewing court of the first instance are applicable to cases certified to us pursuant to W.R.A.P. 12.09(b). Hepp v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division, 881 P.2d 1076, 1077 (Wyo.1994). Judicial review of an administrative decision is limited to a determination of certain matters specified in WYO.STAT. § 16-3-114(c) (1990), which states in pertinent part: (c) ... [T]he reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action. In making the following determinations, the court shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error. The reviewing court shall: ...... (ii) Hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to be: (A) Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law; ...... (E) Unsupported by substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute. In reviewing an administrative decision, we are required to examine the administrative agency's findings of fact under the substantial evidence standard: Our task is to examine the entire record to determine if substantial evidence exists to support the hearing examiner's findings. We will not substitute our judgment for that of the hearing examiner if his decision is supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept in support of the agency's conclusions. Bearden v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division, 868 P.2d 268, 269 (Wyo.1994) (emphasis added) (quoting Romero v. Davy McKee Corporation, 854 P.2d 59, 61 (Wyo.1993)). In Jaqua v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division, 873 P.2d 1219 (Wyo.1994), we imposed on the appellant the burden of proving the negative. We held that a party who appeals from an administrative determination has the burden of proving the lack of substantial evidence to sustain the ruling of the agency. 873 P.2d at 1221 (emphasis added).