§ 3.7.2.6.5.12 Agency Rulings.

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

§ 3.7.2.6.5.12 Agency Rulings. The appellate court accepts an agency’s decision unless it is illegal, arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. See Navajo Cty. v. Prop. Tax Oversight Comm’n, 203 Ariz. 491, 494, ¶ 8, 56 P.3d 65, 68 (App. 2002). Both the trial court and the appellate court decide whether the agency acted illegally, arbitrarily, or capriciously, or whether it abused its discretion. See City of Sierra Vista v. Director, Ariz. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality, 195 Ariz. 377, 380, ¶ 7, 988 P.2d 162, 165 (App. 1999); Koller v. Ariz. Dep’t of Transp., 195 Ariz. 343, 346, ¶ 16, 988 P.2d 128, 131 (App. 1999).

On appeal from a trial court’s ruling on a challenge to an agency’s decision, the court of appeals reviews the superior court’s judgment de novo, reaching the same underlying issue as the superior court: whether the administrative action was not supported by substantial evidence or was illegal, arbitrary, or capricious, or involved an abuse of discretion. See Cross v. Elected Officials Ret. Plan, 234 Ariz. 595, 599 n.2, 325 P.3d 1001, 1005 n.2 (App. 2014); Pendergast v. Ariz. State Ret. Sys., 234 Ariz. 535, 538, ¶ 10, 323 P.3d 1186, 1189 (App. 2014); PCHRC v. Ariz. Dep’t of Health Servs., 232 Ariz. 174, 177, ¶ 7, 303 P.3d 71, 74 (App. 2013). Interpretation of statutory requirements governing judicial review of administrative decisions is a question of law. See Ariz. Physicians IPA, Inc. v. Western Ariz. Regional Med. Ctr., 228 Ariz. 112, 114, ¶ 9, 263 P.3d 661, 663 (App. 2011).

On appeal of a superior court judgment reviewing an administrative agency’s action, the court of appeals determines whether the record contains evidence to support that judgment. In doing so, it reaches the underlying question of whether the administrative entity acted in contravention of the law, arbitrarily, capriciously, or in abuse of its discretion. See Saldate v. Montgomery, 228 Ariz. 495, 498, ¶ 10, 268 P.3d 1152, 1155 (App. 2012). If an agency’s decision is supported by the record, substantial evidence exists to support the decision even if the record also supports a different conclusion. See Gaveck v. Ariz. State Bd. of Podiatry Examiners, 222 Ariz. 433, 436, ¶ 11, 215 P.3d 1114, 1117 (App. 2009).

In administrative appeals, neither the superior court or the court of appeals reweighs the evidence. Whether substantial evidence exists to support an agency decision is for the court of appeals’ independent determination. The court of appeals is not bound by an agency’s or the superior court’s legal conclusions. See Gaveck v. Ariz. State Bd. of Podiatry Examiners, 222 Ariz. 433, 436, ¶ 12, 215 P.3d 1114, 1117 (App. 2009). The court of appeals also reviews de novo the legal issues, including those involving statutory interpretation. See Comm. for Justice & Fairness v. Ariz. Secretary of State’s Office, 235 Ariz. 347, 351, ¶ 17, 332 P.3d 94, 98 (App. 2014).

Issues regarding witness credibility are for the administrative law judge to decide, not the superior court or the court of appeals. The court of appeals views the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding an administrative decision. See Western States Petroleum v. Ariz. Dep’t of Envt’l Quality, 232 Ariz. 252, 253, ¶¶ 6-7, 304 P.3d 539, 540 (App. 2013); Hosea v. City of Phoenix Fire Pension Bd., 224 Ariz. 245, 248, ¶ 10, 229 P.3d 257, 260 (App. 2010). The appellate court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the agency on factual questions or those involving agency expertise. See Winters v. Ariz. Bd. of Educ., 207 Ariz. 173, 176, ¶ 10, 83 P.3d 1114, 1117 (App. 2004).

Questions of an administrative agency’s authority are questions of law reviewed de novo. See City of Phoenix v. Phoenix Employment Relations Bd., 207 Ariz. 337, 340, ¶ 10, 86 P.3d 917, 920 (App. 2004). The same standard applies when...