Opinion ID: 2347897
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: This Court's Standard of Review of a Trial Court's Decision

Text: Having determined the applicable standard of review at the time of the trial court's hearing in this matter, we next decide what our standard of review is on appeal. Under the new standard, the basis for the trial court's modifications of the Panel's decision must be found in the enumerated circumstances listed in Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, section 1.3 (2007). Therefore, unless the trial court concludes that: the panel's findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions are: (1) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) in excess of the panel's jurisdiction; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion; or (5) unsupported by evidence which is both substantial and material in the light of the entire record[,] Tenn. Sup.Ct. R. 9, § 1.3 (2007), the trial court cannot modify the Panel's decision under the new standard. Moreover, under the new standard, the [trial] court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the panel as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. Id. Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, section 1.3, is virtually identical to Tennessee Code Annotated section 4-5-322(h), the statutory section covering judicial review under the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act (UAPA). Tennessee Code Annotated section 4-5-322 provides the standard of review that Tennessee courts use when reviewing an administrative agency's final decision in a contested case: The court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings. The court may reverse or modify the decision if the rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions are: (1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) In excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (3) Made upon unlawful procedure; (4) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion; or (5)(A) Unsupported by evidence which is both substantial and material in the light of the entire record. Tenn.Code Ann. § 4-5-322(a)(1), (h)(1)(5)(A) (2005). Additionally, [i]n determining the substantiality of evidence, the court shall take into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from its weight, but the court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. Id. § 4-5-322(h)(5)(B). Thus, just like this Court's standard of review under UAPA cases, under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, section 1.3, our standard of review is restricted to the record, and the hearing panel's findings may not be reversed or modified unless arbitrary or capricious or characterized by an abuse, or clearly unwarranted exercise, of discretion and must stand if supported by substantial and material evidence. CF Indus. v. Tenn. Pub. Serv. Comm'n., 599 S.W.2d 536, 540 (Tenn. 1980); see Tenn. Sup.Ct. R. 9, § 1.3 (2007).