Opinion ID: 1830613
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: ¶ 24. Because the licensure statutes and regulations at issue in this case are penal in nature, the Board is required to prove its case against Dr. McFadden by clear and convincing evidence, and the statutes and regulations at issue must be strictly construed in favor of Dr. McFadden. See Hogan v. Mississippi Bd. of Nursing, 457 So.2d 931, 934 (Miss.1984) The judicial eye looks to see whether a fair-minded fact finder might have found the evidence clear and convincing that the offense had occurred and where that may be said, we will not disturb the Board's judgment. Riddle v. Mississippi State Bd. of Pharmacy, 592 So.2d 37, 41 (Miss. 1991). ¶ 25. Dr. McFadden complains the Board's administrative decision was not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Dr. McFadden raises issues regarding the accuracy of Mr. Washington's affidavit, particularly the method used to calculate the dosages of controlled substances prescribed [3] , the Board's findings of fact, and the relative credibility and weight to be accorded each party's witnesses, particularly the expert witnesses. Dr. McFadden's concerns about the accuracy of Mr. Washington's affidavit will be discussed below when we address Dr. McFadden's claim that he was denied his right to due process of law. The Court will now address Dr. McFadden's concerns about the Board's findings of fact and the relative credibility and weight to be accorded the parties' witnesses. ¶ 26. Issues of fact and credibility are the primary responsibility of the trier of fact. Accordingly, this Court should not reweigh the facts nor substitute its judgment for that of the fact finder as to credibility issues. The reviewing court is only concerned with the reasonableness of the administrative order, not its correctness. Mississippi Dep't of Envtl. Quality v. Weems, 653 So.2d 266, 281 (Miss.1995). The question is simply whether substantial evidence supports the findings made by the agency. Id. ¶ 27. The Board contends more than sufficient evidence was presented to the Board to satisfy the substantial credible evidence standard by which decisions of administrative boards are reviewed in Mississippi. The Board outlines the following facts for this Court's consideration: