Opinion ID: 1387661
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Substantial Competent Evidence Test.

Text: In Local 1494 of the International Association of Firefighters v. City of Coeur d'Alene, 99 Idaho 630, 586 P.2d 1346 (1978), this Court discussed the test for determining what constitutes substantial evidence for the purposes of judicial review of an administrative agency's action. We observed: The substantial evidence rule is said to be a middle position which precludes a de novo hearing but which nonetheless requires a serious review which goes beyond the mere ascertainment of procedural regularity. Id. at 633, 586 P.2d at 1349. Such a review requires more than a mere scintilla of evidence in support of the agency's determination, id. at 634, 586 P.2d at 1350, though something less than the weight of the evidence. Consolo v. FMC, 383 U.S. 607, 620, 86 S.Ct. 1018, 1026, 16 L.Ed.2d 131 (1966). Put simply, we wrote, the substantial [competent] evidence rule requires a court to determine `whether [the agency's] findings of fact are reasonable.' 4 Davis, Administrative Law Text § 29.01-02 at 525-530. Local 1494, supra, 99 Idaho at 634, 586 P.2d at 1350; see also Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474, 477, 71 S.Ct. 456, 459, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951) (Substantial evidence is `such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.' Consolidated Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59 S.Ct. 206, 217, 83 L.Ed. 126.) (cited with approval in Local 1494, supra ). In deciding whether the agency's findings of fact were reasonable, reviewing courts should not read only one side of the case and, if they find any evidence there, sustain the administrative action and ignore the record to the contrary. Universal Camera, supra, 340 U.S. at 481, 71 S.Ct. at 460; quoted in Local 1494, supra, 99 Idaho at 634, 586 P.2d at 1350. Certainly reviewing courts should not displace the [agency's] choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo.  Universal Camera, supra, 340 U.S. at 488, 71 S.Ct. at 464; accord, Swisher, supra, 98 Idaho at 570, 569 P.2d at 915; Ajax Paving Industries, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 713 F.2d 1214, 1217 (6th Cir.1983) (In conducting its review for substantial evidence the appellate court is not to substitute its own view of the evidence for that of the [agency]... .); cf. I.C. § 67-5215(g) (The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.). Nevertheless, reviewing courts should evaluate whether the evidence supporting that decision [under review] is substantial, when viewed in the light that the record in its entirety furnishes, including the body of evidence opposed to the [agency's] view. Universal Camera, supra, 340 U.S. at 488, 71 S.Ct. at 464; quoted in Local 1494, supra, 99 Idaho at 634, 586 P.2d at 1350; accord, Local One, Amalgamated Lithographers v. National Labor Relations Board, 729 F.2d 172, 175 (2d Cir.1984). Reviewing courts should not automatically reject an agency finding of fact that is supported by substantial competent evidence merely because the agency also incidentally mentions incompetent or irrelevant material. Braniff Airways, Inc. v. CAB, 379 F.2d 453, 466 (D.C. Cir.1967); quoted in Consolidated Gas Supply v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 606 F.2d 323, 329 (D.C. Cir.1979), cert. den. 444 U.S. 1073, 100 S.Ct. 1018, 62 L.Ed.2d 755. If this happens, [t]he appropriate standard is to remand for correction of an error only when there is substantial doubt that the administrative agency would have reached the result it did absent reference to the material. [Citations.] Consolidated Gas, supra, 606 F.2d at 329.