Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/323820.opn.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,757 chars

"We review questions of law de novo, giving substantial weight to the agency's

interpretation of the statutes it administers." Smith, 155 Wn. App. at 32. The

commissioner's findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence in light of the

whole record. Id. '''Substantial evidence' is evidence that would persuade a fair-minded

person of the truth or correctness of the matter." Id. at 32-33. We defer to factual

decisions, with the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the party who

prevailed in the highest forum that exercised fact-finding authority; here, the

Department. William Dickson Co. v. Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, 81 Wn.

App. 403, 411,914 P.2d 750 (1996). As such, we "will not substitute [our] judgment on
I witnesses' credibility or the weight to be given conflicting evidence." W Ports Transp.,

I Inc., 110 Wn. App. at 449. "When reviewing mixed questions of law and fact, [appellate

I courts] accept the [c]ommissioner's unchallenged factual findings, apply the substantial

I
i
i
5
\
I
             

No. 32382-0-111
DeFelice v. Emp't Sec. Dep't

evidence standard to the challenged findings of fact, independently determine the

applicable law, and apply the law to the facts." 'd. at 450 (stating application of law to

facts is de novo). An agency's decision is arbitrary and capricious if the decision is

"willfully unreasonable, without consideration and in disregard of facts or

circumstances." 'd. It is not arbitrary and capricious if the decision is "exercised

honestly and upon due consideration, even where there is room for two opinions." 'd.

Dr. Armand incorrectly contends the evidence solely shows a partnership existed