Opinion ID: 2519623
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Hearing Officer's Decision Was Supported by Substantial Evidence.

Text: In order to uphold the administrative decision, we must determine whether the hearing officer's decision was supported by substantial evidence. As noted above, level three classification required a determination that an animal under restraint caused any physical injury to any human. [31] The municipal code defines physical injury as an impairment of physical condition or pain that is accompanied by scrapes, cuts, punctures or other evidence of similar injuries. [32] It is uncontested that (1) Gummie was restrained [33] and (2) Gummie's actions resulted in several scratches to the baby's face, though they were not deep. [34] All parties agree that Gummie did not display aggressive characteristics such as snarling, baring teeth, growling, [or] snapping. Thus, Gummie did not inflict an aggressive bite, [35] but inflicted physical injury if the scrapes were accompanied by pain. The witnesses disagreed about the baby's reaction, which is important for satisfying the pain element of the physical injury definition. Trescott testified that her baby was crying, while Knight and West testified that he did not cry out and was merely in shock. The hearing officer found Trescott's testimony on the baby's reaction to be more credible because she had a better view. On appeal, West contends that this is false because Knight was standing next to the baby. However, Knight's own testimony indicated that he believed Trescott had the better view: I think [Trescott] may have seen more [than me]. She was pretty concerned about the baby. Where the baby was and everything. She was constantly looking down at the baby while she was talking to me. . . . Additionally, testimony that the baby remained silent is contradicted by other parts of the record. In West's affidavit to Anchorage Animal Control, made two days after the incident, I was unaware there was even a baby present until the baby cried. Similarly, the animal control report of a conversation with Knight the day after the incident states that [Knight] said West came thru the door with his dog and then when he (Knight) heard the infant start crying he looked over in the direction of the infant, and saw the dog with the blanket in its mouth. Finally, the hearing officer's decision involves a credibility determination that we leave to the trier of fact. [36] West cites several cases from foreign jurisdictions to argue that the hearing officer should be required to articulate more of his reasoning. In this case, the hearing officer did clearly articulate his reasoning  Trescott was in the best position to view the baby and thus was more credible on the issue of the baby's injuries and reaction. Moreover, we have stated in workers' compensation cases that credibility determinations do not require substantial findings of fact on the record: Credibility decisions regarding witness testimony, however, are uniquely within the province of the Board and it is not our task on review to reweigh them. There is less need, then, for extensive findings of fact regarding witness credibility. Our task when reviewing a Board decision is to ascertain whether it was based upon substantial evidence, evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. [37] The hearing officer's conclusion that the mother was more observant of her baby at the time of the incident and more accurately remembered her baby's reaction is supported by substantial evidence. Trescott testified, My memory is not faulty. That memory is never going to go out of my mind. I will probably remember that when my son is 30 years old, how lucky I was that that dog did not decide to bite down and crush Ethan's skull. Certainly a reasonable mind could have been persuaded by that testimony. The hearing officer concluded that Gummie, while restrained, caused a physical injury (the uncontested scrapes) which resulted in pain (as evidenced by the crying). Both elements of this determination were supported by substantial evidence and are thus affirmed.