Opinion ID: 1387661
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Issue of Whether the Commission's Findings of Fact as a Matter of Law Supported Its Decision.

Text: The district court's perception that it was to review the Commission's reversal of the hearing officer constituted a fundamental misconception of the relationship between the hearing officer and the full Commission, and of its own function as a reviewing court. Upon Hunnicutt's appeal of the hearing officer's decision, the Commission was entitled to review the record de novo, and revise the decision and order of the member or presiding officer, in whole or in part... . I.C. § 67-5316(i). The decision of the full Commission was not a mere reversal of a lower tribunal; rather, the new decision effectively displaced the proposed decision of the hearing officer (albeit that in the absence of an appeal to the full Commission the hearing officer's decision would have become the decision for the Commission). The full Commission's decision and order, then, was the final agency action to which the district court should have directed its attention. Swisher v. State Department of Environmental and Community Services, 98 Idaho 565, 567, 569 P.2d 910, 912 (1977). It was not the function of the district court to determine whether the hearing officer's determination was reasonable in light of the record, or to weigh the decision of the hearing officer against that of the Commission. Rather, the district court's function was to review the decision of the commission  in order to determine whether to affirm or set aside such order or remand the matter to the commission... . I.C. § 67-5316( l ) (emphasis added).