Court Opinion

ID: 9795775
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:38:45.117445+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:36:43.721980
License: Public Domain

*602BRYNER, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the court's ruling that the board properly considered Platt's set-aside conviction. I also agree that the record is legally sufficient to support the board's decision-that is, when viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the board's decision, there is substantial evidence to support a reasonable conclusion that Platt should not be licensed, But I disagree with the court's decision to affirm the board's ruling. In my view, the board's conclusory rejection of the hearing officer's analysis and its eryptic reference to several selective factors it considered instead provide an inadequate basis for meaningful appellate review.1 I would thus remand for reconsideration and an adequately explained decision.

. See, e.g., Fields v. Kodiak City Council, 628 P.2d 927, 932-33 (Alaska 1981) ('The threshold question in an administrative appeal is whether the record sufficiently reflects the basis for the [agency's] decision so as to enable meaningful judicial review.... Only by focusing on the relationship between evidence and findings, and between findings and ultimate action, can we determine whether the [agency's] action is supported by substantial evidence.").