Court Opinion

ID: 7595061
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-29 06:51:28.073098+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:24:42.997354
License: Public Domain

On application for rehearing Fisher contends that this court applied the wrong *Page 913 
standard for review, wherein we quoted from Thompson v. AlabamaDepartment of Mental Health, 477 So.2d 427
(Ala.Civ.App. 1985), and used the term "any evidence." Fisher cites Exparte Fowl River Protective Ass'n, Inc., 572 So.2d 446
(Ala. 1990), and Dawson v. Alabama Department of EnvironmentalManagement, 529 So.2d 1012 (Ala.Civ.App. 1988), wherein the standard of review applied to decisions of the Commission was whether there was support by substantial evidence or whether the decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. We address this point only for clarification of the current standard of review for decisions of the Commission.
As stated in our original opinion, the Commission's decision is exempt from the application of § 41-22-20, Ala. Code 1975 (Alabama Administrative Procedure Act (AAPA)), which provides standards for judicial review. Instead, judicial review will be in accordance with § 22-22A-7(c)(6).
Both Dawson and Ex parte Fowl River were initiated prior to the enactment of § 41-22-27(f), the section which exempts the Commission from judicial review under the AAPA; therefore, the AAPA was still applicable in those cases. The present case was initiated after the enactment of § 41-22-27(f); therefore, the standard enunciated in Thompson v. Alabama Department of MentalHealth, 477 So.2d 427 (Ala.Civ.App. 1985), applies. SeeDawson, 529 So.2d 1012.
OPINION EXTENDED; APPLICATION FOR REHEARING OVERRULED.
ROBERTSON, P.J., and THIGPEN, J., concur.