 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kunkle v. State4/14/2005
rd or those parts of it cited by a party and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error. The reviewing court shall:
(i) Compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; and
(ii) Hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to be:
(A) Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law;
(B) Contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity;
(C) In excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority or limitations or lacking statutory right;
(D) Without observance of procedure required by law; or
(E) Unsupported by substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute.
[ ] Furthermore, in Hoff v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety and Compensation Div., 2002 WY 129, -8, 53 P.3d 107, -8 (Wyo. 2002), we reiterated the proper application of the substantial evidence and arbitrary and capricious standards of review:
Our standard of review when reviewing administrative agency action was recently clarified in the case of Newman v. State ex. rel.Workers' Safety and Compensation Div., 2002 WY 91, 49 P.3d 163 (Wyo. 2002) . . . .
In appeals where both parties submit evidence at the administrative hearing, Newman mandates that appellate review be limited to application of the substantial evidence test. Newman, 2002 WY 91, , 49 P.3d 163. This is true regardless of which party appeals from the agency decision. In addition, this court is required to review the entire record in making its ultimate determination on appeal. Newman, at and -26.
The substantial evidence test to be applied is as follows:
"In reviewing findings of fact, we examine the entire record to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support an agency's findings. If the agency's decision is supported by substantial evidence, we cannot properly substitute our judgment for that of the agency and must uphold the findings on appeal. Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept in support of the agency's conclusions. It is more than a scintilla of evidence."
Newman, at (quoting State ex rel. Workers' Safety and Compensation Div. v. Jensen, 2001 WY 51, , 24 P. 3d 1133, (Wyo. 2001)).
Even when the factual findings are found to be sufficient under the substantial evidence test, Newman further concludes this court may be required to apply the arbitrary-and-capricious standard as a "safety net" to catch other agency action which prejudiced a party's substantial right to the administrative proceeding or which might be contrary to the other WAPA review standards. . . .
Because Mr. Kunkle and the Division both presented evidence, we will review the decision under the substantial evidence standard.
[ ] We afford no deference to the agency's legal conclusions. Statutory interpretation raises questions of law over which our review authority is plenary. Conclusions of law made by an administrative agency are affirmed only if they are in accord with the law. Wesaw v. Quality Maintenance, 2001 WY 17, , 19 P.3d 500, (Wyo. 2001).
DISCUSSION
[ ] Mr. Kunkle argues that Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-301 (LexisNexis 2003), which purports to require that the employment must be principally located in Wyoming for the act to apply to the work-related injury, pertains only to employment outside of Wyoming and therefore, does not apply to Mr. Kunkle who was working in Wyoming when injured. The Division argues § 27-14-301 clearly pertains to Mr. Kunkle
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Wyoming Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|