Opinion ID: 2197846
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Adoption of the Applicant's Proposed Order

Text: Petitioners claim that the Commission failed to conduct an independent review of the evidence and failed to exercise independent judgment, asserting that it adopted the applicant's proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decision nearly verbatim. We have held that [a] stricter review of the record is in order when a trial judge adopts, verbatim, the proposals of one party. District Concrete Co. v. Bernstein Concrete Corp., 418 A.2d 1030, 1035 (D.C.1980). See also In re Baby Boy C., 581 A.2d 1141, 1144 n. 1 (D.C.1990). In such circumstances, we review the record to ensure that the `findings and conclusions ultimately represent the judge's own determinations.' District Concrete, 418 A.2d at 1035 (quoting Sullivan v. Malarkey, 392 A.2d 1057, 1061 (D.C.1978)). This principle is applicable to administrative settings ... as well. 900 G Street Assocs. v. Dep't of Hous. & Cmty. Dev., 430 A.2d 1387, 1392 n. 1 (D.C. 1981). The Commission did not accept uncritically the findings tendered by the applicant. Although the majority of paragraphs were adopted verbatim from the applicant's proposals, the Commission added sentences and phrases, changed sentence structure, referenced the applicable regulations, changed the grammar, and, in some places, added entirely new paragraphs. Under these circumstances, we see no reason to doubt that the Commission's findings and decision represent its own considered conclusions. See Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 572-73, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985) (noting that the issued findings vary considerably in organization and content from those submitted by petitioner's counsel); see also In re Baby Boy C., 581 A.2d at 1144 n. 1 ([T]he changes made by the trial court, although minor, indicate that the findings and conclusions ultimately represent the judge's own determinations. (internal quotation and citation omitted)). We therefore apply our normal standard, reviewing to ensure that the challenged findings are supported by substantial evidence. Cf. Anderson, 470 U.S. at 573, 105 S.Ct. 1504 (There is no reason to subject those [trial court] findings to a more stringent appellate review than is called for by the applicable rules.).