30A Mass. Gen. Laws § 14

Section 14(6) permits a remand for additional evidence when the party had good reason for failing to present it to the agency; an agency ruling that excluded evidence must instead be challenged under § 14(7).

Commercial Wharf East Condominium Assoc. v. Department of Environmental Protection · filed 2018-06-21(6)

If, on the other hand, the party has attempted to present the evidence, but was prevented from doing so by an agency ruling, the party's remedy is not to seek a remand under § 14(6), but to challenge the agency ruling under § 14(7).

Section 14 allows a court reviewing an agency decision to decide whether the agency's determinations violate constitutional provisions.

Branch v. Commonwealth Employment Relations Board · filed 2019-04-09

With the benefit of an agency's factual determinations, understanding of its regulated industry, and statutory construction, a court can then decide whether the agency's determinations were made in compliance with or "[i]n violation of constitutional provisions." G. L. c. 30A, § 14.

Section 14(6) permits a judge to order an agency to consider additional evidence when it is material and there was good reason it was not presented to the agency.

Davis v. Dep't of Children & Families · filed 2018-10-02(6)

A Superior Court judge may order an agency to reopen its proceedings for consideration of additional evidence if "the additional evidence is material to the issues in the case, and ... there was good reason for failure to present it in the proceeding before the agency."

A judge's decision not to expand the agency record under § 14(6) is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Doe v. Sex Offender Registry Bd. · filed 2019-02-04(6)

We review a judge's decision regarding the inappropriateness of expanding the record under § 14 (6) for an abuse of discretion, and we see none here.

Section 14(6) requires a party seeking to present additional evidence on judicial review to show that it is material to the case; an agency does not waive its opposition by reviewing the evidence.

Kyle K. v. Department of Children and Families · filed 2023-10-06(6)

But in responding to a motion to present additional evidence, an agency would need to review the proffered evidence to determine whether it should oppose the motion, on the basis, for example, that it was immaterial. The stepfather's reading of the statute -- that through such review an agency "waive[s] its opportunity to oppose the additional evidence" -- would prevent an agency from mounting even a meritorious opposition to a motion for leave to present additional evidence. This outcome would defeat the statute. ... But, again, this misreads the statute, which requires that the stepfather show "that the additional evidence is material to the issues in the case." G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (6).

Section 14(6) permits a judge to order an agency to take additional evidence upon a showing of good reason for not presenting it to the agency earlier.

Skinner v. Park Plymouth. · filed 2023-10-11(6)

Ordinarily a judge's review of the decision of an administrative agency is "confined to the record," G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (5), although upon a showing of a failure for "good reason" to present material evidence to the agency, the judge "may order" the agency to take such additional evidence, G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (6). See Gillespie v. Northampton, 460 Mass. 148, 151 n.6 (2011). The plaintiff has not shown that the judge was required to order the agency to take additional evidence.

Section 14(4) permits a court to allow additions to the agency record after a party has moved for judgment on the pleadings when the additions are desirable.

THOMAS SMITH v. CLARE B. WHEATLEY & Others. · filed 2023-11-07(4)

Finally, the plaintiff's argument that the Superior Court judge erred in admitting the DOC's supplemental record after he had filed his motion for judgment on the pleadings is unavailing. ... See also G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (4) ("The court may require or permit subsequent corrections or additions to the record when deemed desirable").

Section 14(5) confines judicial review to the agency record and permits testimony about alleged procedural irregularities when they are not shown in that record.

MICHAEL BROWDER, JR. v. DEPARTMENT OF UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE & Another. · filed 2024-08-28(5)

Live testimony is not necessary where the claims of irregularities in the agency procedure can be decided on the record. See G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (5) ("The review shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be confined to the record, except that in cases of alleged irregularities in procedure before the agency, not shown in the record, testimony thereon may be taken in the court").

Section 14(7) confines judicial review to the administrative record, so a court does not consider material that was not submitted to the agency.

John Doe Sex Offender Registry Board No. 114167 v. Sex Offender Registry Board. · filed 2024-12-18(7)

We decline to consider an additional article that the plaintiff submitted titled "The Age of Redemption for Adolescents Who Were Adjudicated for Sexual Misconduct" because it was not submitted to the hearing examiner at the time of the classification hearing. See G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7) (review is to be confined to administrative record).

Section 14(6) requires a party seeking to present additional evidence to show good reason for failing to present it to the agency.

WINDROCK TRUST COMPANY, LLC, Trustee v. JONATHAN HEDLUND & Others. · filed 2025-01-24(6)

By its terms, § 14 (6) requires the proponent to show "good reason" why the evidence in question was not presented to the administrative body. The plaintiff has not done this.

Section 14(5) confines judicial review to the administrative record, excluding evidence that was not before the agency when it decided the matter.

KENNETH MACDONALD & Another v. KRISTEN KAZOKAS & Another. · filed 2025-12-30(5)

Although these matters are important to the paired case reviewing the decision of the DEP, none of this information was before the commission when it issued the OOC and therefore these matters are not properly before us in reviewing the propriety of that decision.

Section 14 permits judicial review of agency decisions, but when an agency has not adequately explained its decision, the reviewing court should remand for clarification rather than reverse it.

Adams v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board · filed 1989-02-15(7)(c), (e)

As a reviewing court under G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7) (c) and (e), the Superior Court was authorized to set aside or modify the appeal board decision if it determined that the decision was unsupported by substantial evidence or based upon an error of law. ... We agree with the Superior Court judge that the appeal board’s decision failed adequately to state the reasons for the result reached. In our view, however, instead of reversing the board, the Superior Court should have remanded the case to the appeal board for amplification of its decision.

Section 14(6) provides a procedure for remanding an agency decision for additional evidence and findings when the governing judicial review statute is silent.

White v. Director of the Division of Employment Security · filed 1985-08-08(6)

Where G. L. c. 151A, § 42, “the statutory form of judicial review” in this instance, is silent as to the procedure for a remand of an agency’s decision for additional evidence and findings, it is appropriate to examine G. L. c. 30A, § 14, to determine whether it provides a procedure for such a remand. General Laws c. 30A, § 14 (6), provides a specific procedure for remanding an agency’s decision for additional evidence and findings.

Section 14 permits remand for additional evidence about issues already under review, but not for testimony about circumstances arising after the agency’s decision.

Fisgeyer v. Brookline Rent Control Board · filed 1983-12-15(6), (7)

The authority to remand the matter to take further evidence is limited to the authority granted in G.L. c. 30A § 14(6) which in general permits the court to order the taking of additional evidence so as to amplify issues already presented for review and does not extend to circumstances arising after the decision of the board. Likewise, the court may remand the matter for further proceedings before the board under Paragraph (7) of G. L. c. 30A, § 14 under certain circumstances, none of which include the taking of further testimony of circumstances occurring after the decision of the Board.

Section 14(8) requires enough subsidiary findings for a reviewing court to assess whether an agency decision is supported by the evidence and is reasonable; inadequate findings require remand.

Packard Mills, Inc. v. State Tax Commission · filed 1963-04-04(8)

Without such findings we cannot determine whether those findings were warranted, whether the formula was a reasonable valuation method to use, and whether the final decision of the board could be supported on the basis of those findings. The cases must be returned to the board for proper subsidiary findings (as distinguished from mere recitals of evidence) after such further hearings, if any, as the board may deem appropriate.

Section 14(8) permits a court to remand for proper agency findings, but remand is unnecessary when the established facts permit a decision on the merits.

Akers Motor Lines, Inc. v. State Tax Commission · filed 1962-05-10(8)

Nevertheless, we need not remand the case for proper findings, as we might do under G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (8), inserted by St. 1954, c. 681, § 1. Enough has been established to permit decision of the case on the merits, for the board was not free to disbelieve (in the complete absence of contradictory evidence) documentary evidence of the existence of certain North Carolina statutes, of a regulation of the Massachusetts registrar of motor vehicles, and of a written opinion or ruling of the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles.

Section 14(8) allows a court to set aside agency determinations when inadequate findings prevent review for legal error or lack of substantial evidence.

Town of Hamilton v. Department of Public Utilities · filed 1963-05-17(8)

The findings do not enable us to ascertain whether, in aspects discussed below, the department’s specific determinations were “based upon an error of law,” or “unsupported by substantial evidence” or in some respect “not in accordance with law.” G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (8). It is, therefore, necessary to set aside certain portions of the decision so that such findings may be made as will enable us to fulfill our function of reviewing these determinations.

Section 14(8) requires a reviewing court to uphold a general agency finding supported by subsidiary findings and set it aside if it is inconsistent with them.

Children's Hospital Medical Center v. Board of Assessors · filed 1967-06-28(8)

In this court, review pursuant to G. L. c. 58A, § 13, is in accordance with the standards set forth in the State Administrative Procedure Act. G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (8). ... One aspect of review here is that a general finding stands if supported by subsidiary findings but is set aside if inconsistent with them.

Section 14(8)(f) and (g) permits a court to vacate and remand an agency decision when the agency fails to explain a departure from its prior treatment of an issue.

Boston Gas Co. v. Department of Public Utilities · filed 1975-03-04(8)(f) and (g)

In view of the Department’s prior pattern of treatment of this item, an unexplained deviation from that pattern cannot be permitted. Therefore, pursuant to G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (8) (f) and (g), the case is remanded to the county court. An order is to be entered there vacating the decisions and orders of the Department in so far as they exclude the item of the Company’s unamortized retired gas manufacturing plant from its rate base and remanding the case to the Department for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Section 14(7) permits a reviewing court to remand an agency decision so the agency can correct a procedural deficiency.

Delf v. Commissioner of Public Welfare · filed 1975-12-23(7)

We therefore reverse the order affirming the department’s decision and remand the case to the Superior Court with instructions further to remand it to the department in accordance with G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7), as appearing in St. 1973, c. 1114, § 3, in order that the department conform its decision to the cited Federal regulations by “identifying the regulations supporting the decision” at which it arrives.

Section 14 does not require remand when the remaining valid grounds support the agency’s order and there is no real doubt the agency would reach the same result.

United Food Corp. v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission · filed 1978-05-15

The point was considered by the judge below, and we agree with his conclusion that these more serious violations support the revocation, that there is no real doubt that the ABCC upon a remand would again order revocation, and accordingly that remand would be merely a waste of time in a proceeding already protracted. ... To sum up, the judge of the Superior Court was right in holding under G. L. c. 30A, § 14, that there was no ground for interfering with the ABCC’s revocation order.

Section 14(7) permits a reviewing court to remand an agency decision for further findings, additional evidence, or both.

Deluty v. Commissioner of Insurance · filed 1979-02-26(7)

Accordingly, the judgment of the Superior Court is reversed in accordance with part 2 of this opinion, and a new judgment is to enter remanding the matter to the Commissioner for further proceedings, which may include further findings or the taking of further evidence or both. See G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7); School Comm. of Chicopee v. Massachusetts Commn. Against Discrimination, 361 Mass. at 355.

Section 14(7) requires a reviewing court to remand when the agency’s findings are too sparse to permit review, even if substantial evidence could support its decision.

Reed National Corp. v. Director of the Division of Employment Security · filed 1983-03-07(7)

Although there was substantial evidence before the board justifying its conclusion allowing benefits after August 1, 1981, we cannot make the findings necessary to reach that conclusion.

Section 14(6) permits a court to remand for additional evidence only if the evidence is material and there was good reason it was not presented to the agency.

Benmosche v. Board of Registration in Medicine · filed 1992-03-02(6)

Under G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (6), a reviewing court may order that “additional evidence be taken before the agency” only upon a showing that it is “material” and that there was “good reason” for the failure to present it in the original agency proceeding.

Section 14(7) permits remand when an agency resolves significant credibility disputes solely by reviewing transcripts or recordings of testimony.

Town of Southbridge Zoning Board of Appeals v. Housing Appeals Committee · filed 1995-08-18(7)

This case must be remanded to the HAC for further proceedings. Where significant issues of credibility must be resolved by the fact finder, those issues may not be resolved by merely reviewing a transcript of the testimony, or even a tape recording of the proceedings. ... For these reasons, this matter is remanded to the Housing Appeals Committee for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, pursuant to G.L.c. 30A, §14(7).

Section 14(7) permits remand when an agency’s explanation does not identify the evidence it relied on clearly enough for substantial evidence review.

Klein v. Commerce Insurance · filed 1996-06-12(7)

The decision to remand this case is made in part because, in order for the reviewing court to make an informed determination about the substantiality of the evidence, it must know what evidence in particular the Board relied upon, and in what respect that evidence was found persuasive.

Section 14(6) permits additional evidence on judicial review when the court finds good reason to allow it.

Greaney v. Hillman · filed 1997-08-15(6)

The court generally has the benefit of a full record when it reviews an agency decision, and the court may even permit the introduction of additional evidence in cases where the court finds that there is good reason to do so. G.L.c. 30A, §14(6).

Section 14(6) permits a reviewing court to remand a case for further agency proceedings even when the plaintiff has not moved under that subsection.

Boutilier v. McIntire · filed 1998-04-27(6)

Although the supporting case law is both scant and vague, this Court has authority to remand the case to the hearing board for further proceedings pursuant to G.L.c. 30A, §14(6), notwithstanding the absence of a motion from the plaintiff pursuant to that section.

Section 14(7) permits a reviewing court to remand for further agency proceedings; the court may instead decide the case on undisputed facts when the agency made few findings.

Chebacco Liquor Mart, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverage Commission · filed 1998-08-11(7)

Rather than remand this case for further proceedings by the ABCC, as G.L.c. 30A, §14(7) permits me to do, I elect to base my decision on those facts that the parties do not dispute.

Section 14(7) permits remand when an agency fails to consider a material issue before deciding eligibility.

Demurjian v. Division of Medical Assistance · filed 1999-11-19(7)(e), (g)

G.L.c. 30A, §14(7)(e) and (g), however, permit a decision to be set aside or modified if the rights of any party may have been prejudiced because the agency decision is unsupported by substantial evidence or is arbitrary or capricious or an abuse of discretion. ... The DMA may or may not accept that proposition, but it is obliged to consider it before imposing a period of ineligibility. Accordingly, this Court will remand this case to the DMA, for consideration of whether Mrs. Demurjian’s transfer of assets to her daughter was “exclusively for a purpose other than to qualify for MassHealth.”

Section 14(7) permits a reviewing court to set aside an agency decision without remand when the agency’s supported findings require a particular result under the correct legal standard.

Hertz Corp. v. Acting Director of Division of Employment & Training · filed 2001-09-05(7)

A reviewing court “may affirm the decision of the agency, or remand the matter for further proceedings before the agency; or the court may set aside or modify the decision, or compel any action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed . . . .” G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7). Here, further action by the board serves no purpose.

Section 14(7) permits a court to vacate an agency decision and remand for a new hearing.

Town of Oxford v. Civil Service Commission · filed 2007-01-02(7)

On balance, the Court concludes that the correct course of action, as permitted by G.L.c. 30A, §14(7) is to vacate the decision and remand the case to the Commission for a de novo hearing.

Section 14(7)(d) allows a court to review whether an agency decision rests on adequately stated findings and reasoning.

Whitman's Case · filed 2011-09-06(7)(d)

As a matter of form required by § 11(8) and § 14(7)(d), the administrative judge’s conclusion rests upon adequately stated findings and reasoning.

Section 14(7) authorizes a reviewing court to remand an agency decision for further proceedings when the agency commits an error of law.

Noe v. Sex Offender Registry Board · filed 2017-03-28(7)

The Board’s error only can be resolved by remanding Petitioner’s case for a rehearing. G.L.c. 30A, §14(7) (authorizing reviewing court to “remand the matter for further proceedings before the agency”).

Under § 14’s substantial evidence standard, a reviewing court considers evidence that detracts from the agency’s conclusion.

School Committee v. Bureau of Special Education Appeals · filed 1983-07-14

Finally, in evaluating the substantiality of the evidence before the bureau and the inferences the hearing officer drew from the evidence, we must consider anything in the record that “fairly detracts from [the] weight of the evidence supporting” the hearing officer’s determination.

Section 14(7) calls for deference to an agency decision when claims of legal error, insufficient evidence, and arbitrary or capricious action fail.

Hertz Corp. v. Acting Director of the Division of Employment & Training · filed 2002-07-12(7)

Hertz asserts that the board’s determination of no stoppage is based on an error of law, unsupported by substantial evidence, and arbitrary and capricious. Because we conclude that each of these assertions fails, we defer to the decision of the board. See G. L. c. 151 A, § 42; G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7).

Section 14(7)(e) requires a reviewing court to accept the commission’s factual findings unless they are unsupported by substantial evidence.

Lynn Teachers Union, Local 1037 v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination · filed 1990-01-22(7)(e)

Similarly, G.L.c. 30A, § 14 (7) ( e ) (1988 ed.), requires that a court reviewing a decision of the commission accept the factual findings of the commission unless they are "[u]nsupported by substantial evidence."

Section 14(7) permits a reviewing court to modify or set aside agency findings and conclusions that are arbitrary or unsupported by substantial evidence, including findings bearing on credibility.

Bettencourt v. Board of Registration in Medicine · filed 1990-08-08(7)

While the task of assessing the credibility of witnesses is one uniquely within an agency’s discretion ... this court may modify or set aside findings and conclusions that are arbitrary or unsupported by substantial evidence.

Section 14(7) supplies the substantial evidence standard for judicial review of adjudicatory agency decisions.

Massachusetts Ass'n of Older Americans v. Commissioner of Insurance · filed 1984-11-29(7)

Thus, we need not decide whether there is a conflict because, in any event, review under G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7), is the “substantial evidence” standard.

Section 14(7) provides for substantial evidence review of an agency decision.

Abramowitz v. DIRECTOR OF DIV. OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY · filed 1983-09-16(7)

We review the division's decision by applying the substantial evidence standard of review. G.L.c. 151A, § 42. G.L.c. 30A, § 14 (7).

Section 14(8)(e) calls for sustaining an agency decision when substantial evidence supports its conclusions.

O'Brien v. State Tax Commission · filed 1959-04-16(8)(e)

Thus, if there was substantial evidence to support the conclusions of the board as reflected in its decision and by its rulings of law (or the absence of evidence on issues as to which the trustee had the burden of proof), the decision of the board is to be sustained. See G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (8) (e).

Section 14(8)(e) requires a reviewing court to affirm an agency decision if substantial evidence supports it.

Western Electric Co. v. Director of the Division of Employment Security · filed 1960-01-04(8)(e)

Since the decision of the board must be affirmed unless “[unsupported by substantial evidence” (G. L. c. 151A, § 42; G. L. c. 30A, § 14 [8] [e]), we turn to the record to see if we can find support for the board’s decision.

Section 14(8)(e) permits a court to set aside an agency decision unsupported by substantial evidence.

Singer Sewing MacHine Co. v. Assessors of Boston · filed 1960-12-06(8)(e)

See State Administrative Procedure Act, G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (8) (e). ... But, bearing in mind the vague and unsatisfactory form of the affidavit and the misstated fact it contained, we are of opinion that the affidavit did not constitute substantial evidence supporting the finding.

Section 14(8) calls for judicial review of the Appellate Tax Board’s final decision for substantial evidence.

State Tax Commission v. Sears Roebuck & Co. · filed 1962-06-04(8)

Instead, it is apparent that the appeal to the board is the final step in the administrative process, and it is the decision of the board which it is our duty to review under G. L. c. 58A, § 13, and G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (8). ... On all these facts it was open to the board to determine what most fairly reflected the value of the capital stock and the value of the corporate excess in accordance with principles and methods consistent with the statutes and with a reasonable uniformity in their application, provided its conclusion was supported by substantial evidence.

Section 14 requires a reviewing court to consider the entire record and set aside an agency decision that prejudices substantial rights because it lacks substantial evidence.

Salisbury Water Supply Co. v. Department of Public Utilities · filed 1962-07-09(8)(e)

One of the duties of judicial review is to determine “upon consideration of the entire record” whether substantial rights have been prejudiced because the agency decision was “unsupported by substantial evidence. ” G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (8). ... Nor is such a course necessary at this time, because we are of opinion that the decisions of the department are open to the objections urged by the companies that there are a lack of substantial evidence and an absence of reasons for the decisions.

Section 14(8) provides for judicial review of whether an agency’s findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Massachusetts Co-operative Bank League v. Board of Bank Incorporation · filed 1964-12-01(8)

This review of the board’s decision takes place under G. L. c. 170, § 49 (see fn. 1), in accordance with standards of review set out in G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (8). ... The board’s conclusions are based on subsidiary findings, which in turn are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 14(8)(e) permits an agency’s findings to stand when the record contains evidence a reasonable mind could accept as adequate to support them.

Town of Sudbury v. Department of Public Utilities · filed 1966-06-24(8)(e)

Examination of the transcript and the exhibits demonstrates that the subsidiary findings of the department are supported at the very least by ‘ ‘ such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Gr. L. c. 30A, §§ 1 (6), 14 (8) (e).

Section 14(8)(e) permits a court to set aside an appeal board decision that lacks substantial evidence to justify overturning a local board’s finding.

Wakefield Contributory Retirement Board v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board · filed 1967-05-02(8)(e)

It is our view that the record contains no “substantial evidence” which would justify the appeal board’s overturning the finding of the local board that the incident of July 12,1960, was not the cause of Hurton’s present physical disability. G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (8) (e).

Section 14(8)(e) requires a reviewing court to assess whether substantial evidence supports an agency’s findings.

LaPierre v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination · filed 1968-04-09(8)(e)

The conclusion of refusal to negotiate with the Cruzes in good faith and to rent to them was supported by substantial evidence. G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (8) (e). ... But there is here a lack of substantial evidence to support an important conclusion.

Section 14 treats agency findings based on facts not properly before the agency as unsupported by substantial evidence.

New York Central Railroad v. Department of Public Works · filed 1968-05-09(8)(e)

The opportunity not having been afforded as to the facts referred to in the stipulation, those facts were not properly before the department at the time of the decision. It follows that the findings based thereon are “unsupported by substantial evidence” (§ 14 [8] [¥]).

Section 14(8)(e) provides for review of whether an agency decision is supported by substantial evidence.

AAA Movers v. Department of Public Utilities · filed 1968-06-03(8)(e)

The decision of the department was ... and these were not “[unsupported by substantial evidence.” G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (8) (e).

Section 14(8) requires a court reviewing an agency decision for substantial evidence to affirm when the record contains evidence a reasonable mind could accept, even if the court would have decided differently.

Labor Relations Commission v. University Hospital, Inc. · filed 1971-05-13(8)

General Laws c. 150A, § 6 (e), as amended by St. 1954, c. 681, § 10, provides that if the Commission petitions the Superior Court for the enforcement of one of its orders, the “order or decision of the commission shall be reviewed in accordance with the standards for review provided in paragraph (8) of section fourteen of chapter thirty A.” ... The judicial inquiry is limited to a determination whether within the record which was before the Commission and which it has sent to the court for review there is "such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support” the Commission’s conclusion that the skilled tradesmen in the hospital’s maintenance department constituted an appropriate unit for the proposes of G. L. c. 150A, § 5. If there is, the action of the Commission must be affirmed even though the court would have reached a different result if it were originally in the position of the Commission.

Section 14(8)(e) permits a reviewing court to uphold an agency finding supported by substantial evidence.

Cabot Nursing Home, Inc. v. Rate Setting Commission · filed 1971-06-18(8)(e)

Emergency or not, the commission found that “this improvement of $5,282.80 has prolonged the life of the furnace,” and we cannot say that the finding was misupported by substantial evidence. G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (8) (e).

Section 14 (8) (e) provides for judicial review of whether substantial evidence supports an agency decision.

Masiello v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board · filed 1971-11-10(8)(e)

Furthermore, the decision was supported by “substantial evidence,” in particular the findings of a medical panel made in 1968 in connection with an application by the plaintiff for accidental disability retirement. G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (8) (e).

Section 14(8)(e) permits an agency finding to stand when substantial evidence supports it.

Bond v. Commissioner of Public Safety · filed 1973-11-06(8)(e)

As there was substantial evidence (G. L. c. 30A, §1[6], and § 14[8] [e]) to support such a finding, the question for decision is whether the commissioner’s ruling was erroneous as matter of law.

Section 14(8)(e) requires a reviewing court to uphold an agency’s factual finding if substantial evidence supports it.

Raytheon Co. v. Director of Division of Employment Security · filed 1974-02-13(8)(e)

To the extent that an agency finding is one of fact, it must stand unless “unsupported by substantial evidence.”

Section 14(8) permits a reviewing court to set aside an agency decision unsupported by substantial evidence when a party’s substantial rights may have been prejudiced.

Katz v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination · filed 1974-05-28(8)

Paragraph (8) of § 14 permits a reviewing court to set aside the decision of an agency if it ... determines “that the substantial rights of any party may have been prejudiced because the agency decision is ... (e) Unsupported by substantial evidence.” ... Clearly there was substantial evidence here to support the commission’s order, and these findings were in turn warranted on the evidence.

Section 14(8)(e) requires a reviewing court to consider evidence that detracts from an agency’s findings, while leaving the agency’s choice between fairly conflicting views intact.

St. Elizabeth's Hospital v. Labor Relations Commission · filed 1975-01-16(8)(e)

While a reviewing court must consider whatever evidence in the record fairly detracts from the weight of the evidence relied on by the Commission, ... this does not permit a court to “displace an administrative board’s choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo.”

A reviewing court is bound by an agency finding supported by substantial evidence.

City of Newton v. Department of Public Utilities · filed 1975-05-07(7)

We are, of course, bound by the Department’s. finding (to which, indeed, no challenge is made) that service in Newton had attained acceptable levels at the time of the final decision, since that finding rests on substantial evidence.

Section 14(8) directs a reviewing court to determine whether an agency decision is unsupported by substantial evidence.

Save the Bay, Inc. v. Department of Public Utilities · filed 1975-01-27(8)

Our scope of review is, as set forth in G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (8), to determine whether the Department’s decision is, inter alla, unsupported by substantial evidence.

Section 14(7)(e) permits a court to set aside an agency decision that is unsupported by substantial evidence.

Maddocks v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board · filed 1976-01-07(7)(e)

Under G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7) (e), as appearing in St. 1973, c. 1114, § 3, ... a decision of an administrative agency may be set aside on judicial review if the reviewing court determines that such decision is “[unsupported by substantial evidence.”

Section 14(7)(e) permits a court to set aside an agency decision that lacks substantial evidentiary support.

Olde Towne Liquor Store, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission · filed 1977-03-14(7)(e)

The judge may set aside the agency’s decision only if it is “[ujnsupported by substantial evidence.” G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7) (e), as appearing in St. 1973, c. 1114, § 3. ... On the record, we have no difficulty finding substantial evidentiary support for the suspension of Olde Towne’s license.

Section 14(7)(e) requires courts reviewing an agency decision to determine whether substantial evidence supports its factual bases.

Trustees of Clark University v. Department of Public Utilities · filed 1977-04-05(7)(e)

We think the reasons given are adequate to justify the department’s decision and that the factual bases for the reasons are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 14(7)(e) calls for substantial evidence review while leaving the agency to assess credibility and draw reasonable inferences from the evidence.

Shrewsbury Retirement Board v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board · filed 1977-06-01(7)(e)

The local board would have us go further and affirm its decision on the ground that there is no substantial evidence of causation on which the appeal board could base a finding. G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7) (e), as appearing in St. 1973, c. 1114, § 3. ... Despite the discrepancies and the sparse medical testimony, we cannot say with assurance that an expert administrative board, though composed of lay members, could not on the record in this case reasonably “relate [the employee’s] incapacity to a specific injury or incident as a matter of general human knowledge and experience and without resort to what, in the absence of medical testimony, might partake of speculation and conjecture.”

Section 14(7)(e) requires substantial evidence in the record to support an agency decision on judicial review.

New England Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Department of Public Utilities · filed 1977-06-03(7)(e)

Substantial evidence, within the meaning of G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7) (e), supports the department’s decision to disallow NET’s two-tiered payment structure.

Section 14 requires a court reviewing an agency decision for substantial evidence to consider the evidence and reasonable inferences while giving due weight to the agency’s experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge.

Imprescia v. State Racing Commission · filed 1978-02-02

In deciding whether the commission’s conclusion that the plaintiff* had violated Rules of Horse Racing numbered 519 and 524 was supported by "substantial evidence” (G. L. c. 30A, §§ 1[6], 14), we must not only consider the laboratory reports and other evidence presented to the commission, as well as the reasonable inferences which could be drawn therefrom, but must also give due weight to the ... commission’s own experience, technical competence and specialized knowledge in the field of horse racing.

Section 14(7)(e) requires courts reviewing agency findings for substantial evidence to give due weight to the agency’s expertise and statutory discretion.

Fioravanti v. State Racing Commission · filed 1978-04-28(7)(e)

Fioravanti argues that no substantial evidence was introduced at the commission hearing to support a finding that he violated Rule 607. See G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7) (e). ... In determining whether the commission’s findings are based upon substantial evidence, the court must give due weight to the commission’s expertise and to the discretionary authority conferred upon it by the Legislature. ... There was substantial evidence to support the commission’s findings.

Section 14(8)(e) requires substantial evidence to support an administrative decision.

Dwyer v. Commissioner of Insurance · filed 1978-05-15(8)(e)

We agree with the trial judge that they fully supported the measure he decided to take and furnished that “substantial evidence” required by the APA to be adduced as a basis for administrative decision.

Section 14(7)(e) makes an agency factual finding conclusive on appeal when substantial evidence supports it.

Smith v. Director of the Division of Employment Security · filed 1978-11-06(7)(e)

This finding is supported by substantial evidence, and is therefore conclusive on appeal.

Section 14(7)(e) requires an agency’s necessary finding to be supported by substantial evidence on judicial review.

Wells Fargo Armored Service Corp. v. Department of Public Utilities · filed 1978-11-09(7)(e)

The required finding must be supported by substantial evidence. G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7) (e). ... We think that the present case is different and that the decision of the department is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 14(7) limits review of the commission’s decision to whether the record contains substantial evidence supporting it.

City of Worcester v. Labor Relations Commission · filed 1979-02-01(7)

Upon a careful review of the entire record, it is clear that the commission decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Section 14(7) directs a reviewing court to leave agency findings undisturbed when substantial evidence supports them and the conclusions contain no error of law.

Evancho v. Director of the Division of Employment Security · filed 1978-05-17(7)

With regard to the standards of review applicable to findings and decisions of the board (or, as in this case, those of the review examiner as adopted by the board), c. 151A, § 42, specifies that the State Administrative Procedure Act, G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7), controls. Thus, where the findings of the review examiner are “supported by substantial evidence with conclusions not based on any error of law,” they will not be disturbed by a reviewing court.

Section 14(7)(e) permits a judge to set aside an agency decision that lacks substantial evidence.

Number Three Lounge, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission · filed 1979-03-28(7)(e)

The judge may set aside the agency’s decision only if it is "[Unsupported by substantial evidence,” G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7)(e), as so amended, substantial evidence meaning "such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion,” G. L. c. 30A, § 1(6), as amended through St. 1978, c. 552, § 13.

Section 14(7) requires a party challenging an agency decision to show that the record lacks substantial evidence to support it.

Westinghouse Broadcasting Co. v. Director of the Division of Employment Security · filed 1979-05-08(7)

To prevail on this ground, the employer must carry the heavy burden of demonstrating that there is no substantial evidence on the record adequate to support the decision of the board. G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7).

Section 14(7)(e) permits a court to set aside an agency decision if it is unsupported by substantial evidence.

Boylston-Washington, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission · filed 1979-09-28(7)(e)

An agency decision may be set aside only if it is "[unsupported by substantial evidence.” G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7) (e), as amended by St. 1976, c. 411, §§ 1 and 2.

Section 14(7)(e) permits a court to uphold an agency finding supported by substantial evidence.

Trustees of Deerfield Academy v. Director of the Division of Employment Security · filed 1980-12-02(7)(e)

It is sufficient for us to say that we believe that the evidence of the reason for the claimant’s dismissal was sufficient to preclude any conclusion that the finding thereon by the review examiner was “[ujnsupported by substantial evidence” as those words are used in G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7) (e).

Section 14(7)(e) limits judicial review of an agency’s factual determination to whether substantial evidence supports it.

Faith Assembly of God of South Dennis & Hyannis, Inc. v. State Building Code Commission · filed 1981-02-11(7)(e)

Under G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7)(e), our review of the propriety of the board’s determination is limited to whether it was supported by substantial evidence, which is “such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”

Section 14(7)(e) requires substantial evidence in the record to support an agency’s findings; agency expertise cannot substitute for that evidence.

Arthurs v. Board of Registration in Medicine · filed 1981-04-03(7)(e)

There must, however, be substantial evidence in the record to support the findings of the board. While the board is free to evaluate evidence in light of its expertise, it cannot use its expertise as a substitute for evidence in the record.

Section 14(8) requires a reviewing court to assess substantial evidence on the entire record.

New Boston Garden Corp. v. Board of Assessors · filed 1981-04-24(8)

Our determination must be made “upon consideration of the entire record.” Cohen v. Board of Registration in Pharmacy, 350 Mass. 246, 253 (1966), quoting from G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (8) (State Administrative Procedure Act).

Section 14(7)(e)-(f) allows a court to uphold an agency’s factual finding when the record contains sufficient evidence to support it.

School Committee v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination · filed 1979-02-28(7)(e)-(f)

Lastly the school committee urges that the commission’s order should be set aside on the grounds that its finding regarding the length of the complainant’s disability was not supported by substantial evidence and was unwarranted by the facts on the record. See G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7) (e)-(f). Again we disagree. Between the two letters from Dr. Marcovitch and the testimony of the complainant herself, the commission had sufficient evidence from which to find that her pregnancy-related disability had lasted six weeks.

Section 14(7)(e) allows a court to uphold an agency finding supported by substantial evidence despite conflicting evidence; credibility is for the review examiner to decide.

Lewis v. Director of the Division of Employment Security · filed 1980-02-11(7)(e)

The fact that there was conflicting evidence does not require us to hold that the finding was not supported by substantial evidence. Questions of credibility are for the review examiners, not the courts. We think that the finding is supported by substantial evidence and is adequate to support the denial of benefits. See G. L. c. 151A, § 41; G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7) (e).

Section 14(7) permits a judge to set aside an agency decision that lacks substantial evidence.

Blue Moon Saloon, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission · filed 1980-12-19(7)

The judge may set aside the agency’s decision only if it is ‘[unsupported by substantial evidence.’”

Section 14(7)(e) requires a court to affirm agency findings of fact unless they are unsupported by substantial evidence.

Trustees of Forbes Library v. Labor Relations Commission · filed 1981-11-12(7)(e)

Unless the commission’s findings are “[unsupported by substantial evidence,” we must affirm. G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7) (e), as amended through St. 1973, c. 1114, § 3.

Section 14(7) requires a court reviewing an agency decision for substantial evidence to consider the entire record, including evidence that detracts from the agency’s conclusion.

Griffin's Brant Rock Package Store, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission · filed 1981-12-14(7)

Under G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7), as appearing in St. 1973, c. 1114, § 3, a reviewing court acts “upon consideration of the entire record” and must take into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from its weight.

Section 14(7)(e) requires a reviewing court to consider the whole record without substituting its view of the facts when substantial evidence supports the agency’s decision.

Moulton v. Brookline Rent Control Board · filed 1982-02-05(7)(e)

We review the board’s action as if it were a State agency (see note 3, supra; G. L. c. 30A, § 14). ... While we must consider the entire record, and must take into account whatever in the record detracts from the weight of the agency’s opinion, ... as long as there is substantial evidence to support the determination of the agency, we will not substitute our views of the facts.

Section 14 requires a court to uphold an agency decision supported by substantial evidence.

Zoning Board of Appeals v. Housing Appeals Committee · filed 1982-03-26

The scope of judicial review is determined by G. L. c. 30A, § 14. See G. L. c. 40B, § 22. ... The decision of HAG must be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence.

Under § 14(8)(e), a reviewing court may consider whether other evidence in the record undermines the evidence supporting an agency finding.

Kahn v. Brookline Rent Control Board · filed 1982-04-30(8)(e)

In determining whether substantial evidence exists, the reviewing court may properly consider whether' other evidence in the record so detracts from or controls the evidence relied upon by the board as to undermine it.

Section 14(7)(e)'s substantial evidence test applies to the Board's findings in a physician disciplinary proceeding.

Feldstein v. Board of Registration in Medicine · filed 1982-08-31(7)(e)

The substantial evidence test of G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7) (e), is clearly met with respect to the findings.

Section 14 limits review of agency findings to whether substantial evidence in the record supports them.

Babcock v. Labor Relations Commission · filed 1982-11-08

Our power to review the Commission’s findings is limited to an examination of the record to ascertain if the findings are supported by substantial evidence. See G. L. c. 150E, § 11, incorporating G. L. c. 30A, § 14.

Section 14(7) requires a court reviewing an agency determination for substantial evidence to consider the entire record, including evidence that detracts from the determination.

General Dynamics Corp. v. Board of Assessors of Quincy · filed 1983-01-21(7)

In deciding whether substantial evidence supports an agency determination, the court “upon consideration of the entire record” (G. L. c. 30A, § 14 [7], as appearing in St. 1973, c. 1114, § 3) must determine the substantiality of evidence by taking into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from its weight.

Section 14(7)(e) requires a reviewing court to defer to agency findings supported by substantial evidence.

Nantucket Cottage Hospital v. Director of the Division of Employment Security · filed 1983-03-04(7)(e)

This conclusion is entitled to deference and may not be set aside unless it is unsupported by substantial evidence. ... Since these findings are supported by substantial evidence, we conclude that the District Court judge improperly reversed the decision of the board.

Section 14(7)(e) permits a court to set aside an agency decision that is unsupported by substantial evidence.

Deacon Transportation, Inc. v. Department of Public Utilities · filed 1983-03-10(7)(e)

Under G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7) (e), a decision of an administrative agency may be set aside on judicial review if the court determines that the decision is unsupported by substantial evidence.

Section 14(7)(e) uses the substantial evidence test to review agency decisions.

Sarni Original Dry Cleaners, Inc. v. Cooke · filed 1983-04-04(7)(e)

Chapter 30A, § 14 (7) (e) (as appearing in St. 1973, c. 1114, § 3), implements, inter alla, the “substantial evidence” test as a measure of agency decisions.

Section 14(7) requires a reviewing court to assess whether substantial evidence supports an agency decision.

Ryan v. Board of Registration in Medicine · filed 1983-04-06(7)

There was substantial evidence in support of the Board’s decision against the physician on these points. G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7).

Section 14(7)(e) provides for review of whether an agency’s findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Lion Distributors, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission · filed 1983-04-21(7)(e)

We agree with the judge that there was substantial evidence to support the commission’s findings that not all the records of the plaintiff were produced and that some of the ones which were contained misrepresentations.

On judicial review under § 14, the commission need only demonstrate that its decision rests on substantial evidence.

Denny v. Labor Relations Commission · filed 1983-05-23

It was only necessary for the commission, upon judicial review, to demonstrate that it acted on substantial evidence.

Section 14(7)(e) permits a court to uphold an agency finding that is supported by substantial evidence.

New England Liquor Sales Co. v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission · filed 1983-06-08(7)(e)

That argument is without merit, as the Commission’s finding is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 14 (7) requires courts to review agency findings under the substantial evidence standard.

Abramowitz v. Director of the Division of Employment Security · filed 1983-09-16(7)

We review the division’s decision by applying the substantial evidence standard of review. G. L. c. 151A, § 42. G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7). ... Viewing the entirety of the evidence, we conclude that the hearing examiner’s findings are supported adequately in the record.

Section 14(7)(e) requires a court reviewing for substantial evidence to examine the entire record, including contrary evidence, without substituting its judgment for the agency’s.

Craven v. State Ethics Commission · filed 1983-09-20(7)(e)

“We note the limited nature of our review under the substantial evidence standard. Although we must examine the entire record, including any evidence that detracts from the weight of the [commission’s] decision . . . we may not substitute our judgment for that of the [commission] ...” (citations omitted).

Section 14(7)(e) allows a court to disturb an agency decision for lack of substantial evidence; the court upheld the commission’s decision because the record supported its finding.

Town of Burlington v. Labor Relations Commission · filed 1984-01-23(7)(e)

In reviewing a decision of the commission, this court “may only disturb the decision for one of the causes set forth in [G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7)(a) - (g)].” ... Based on the record before this court, we cannot say the commission lacked substantial evidence to make its determination.

Section 14(7)(e) requires a court reviewing an agency finding to determine whether substantial evidence supports it.

Lycurgus v. Director of the Division of Employment Security · filed 1984-04-04(7)(e)

The test is whether the finding is supported by “substantial evidence.” ... See G. L. c. 151A, § 42; G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7) (e). ... We conclude that there was substantial evidence to support the review examiner’s finding.

Section 14(7) supplies the substantial evidence standard for reviewing a utility decision when the challenge does not claim confiscation.

Boston Edison Co. v. Department of Public Utilities · filed 1984-11-08(7)

Since the company's challenge does not constitute a claim of confiscation, the standard of review is that contained in G.L.c. 30A, § 14 (7).

Section 14(7) requires a reviewing court to uphold an agency board’s findings when substantial evidence supports them.

Kendall v. Director of the Division of Employment Security · filed 1985-01-23(7)

The law requires that the board’s findings be upheld if they are supported by substantial evidence. G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7).

Section 14(7) requires courts reviewing agency decisions to determine whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Jorgensen v. Director of the Division of Employment Security · filed 1985-05-13(7)

We hold that the review examiner’s findings and conclusion are supported by substantial evidence, and we reverse the judgment of the District Court judge.

Section 14(8) requires a court reviewing substantial evidence to consider the entire record, including evidence that detracts from the agency’s decision.

Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Ass'n v. Commissioner of Insurance · filed 1985-05-30(8)

Rather, our determination of the substantiality of the evidence must be made “upon consideration of the entire record,” id., quoting G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (8), including “whatever in the record fairly detracts from its weight.”

Section 14(7) requires a reviewing court to defer to an agency’s factual findings when substantial evidence supports them and there is no other error of law.

Buckley Nursing Home, Inc. v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination · filed 1985-06-03(7)

Under the State Administrative Procedure Act, we must defer to the fact-finding function of the commission where substantial evidence exists to support its findings and there is no other error of law. G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7).

Section 14(7)(e) permits a court to set aside an agency decision unsupported by substantial evidence.

Fitchburg Gas & Electric Light Co. v. Department of Public Utilities · filed 1985-09-12(7)(e)

Notwithstanding the emphasis on the inadequacies of their presentation, the petitioners argue that the department’s determination is not supported by substantial evidence. We may set aside a department decision which is not so supported. G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7) (e) (1984 ed.).

Section 14(7)(e) requires a court to uphold an agency decision when its findings are supported by substantial evidence in the entire record.

Langlitz v. Board of Registration of Chiropractors · filed 1985-12-11(7)(e)

We must uphold the decision of the board where, considering the entire record, its findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 14(7)(e) allows a reviewing court to consider evidence admitted before an agency when assessing substantial evidence, even if the agency did not mention it in its final order.

Day v. Board of Registration in Embalming & Funeral Directing · filed 1986-04-09(7)(e)

It was before the board when it rendered its decision, and the board stated specifically in its decision that it had considered all the evidence presented. The single justice was therefore justified in considering the police report to determine if, on the entire record, the board’s findings were supported by substantial evidence.

Section 14(7) requires courts reviewing an agency decision to assess whether substantial evidence supports the agency’s findings.

Fitzgerald v. Board of Registration in Veterinary Medicine · filed 1987-05-13(7)

In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence underlying the board’s decision, we apply the “substantial evidence” standard contained in G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7) (1984 ed.).

Section 14(7)(e) permits reversal of an agency decision when its findings lack substantial evidence.

Solimeno v. State Racing Commission · filed 1987-07-09(7)(e)

Lack of substantial evidence warrants the reversal of an agency decision. G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7) (e). ... We conclude that there was substantial evidence supporting the commission’s decision as to Ross, and that the judge erred in reversing it.

Section 14(7)(e) permits a court to set aside an agency decision that is unsupported by substantial evidence.

Embers of Salisbury, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission · filed 1988-01-14(7)(e)

We may set aside the ABCC's decision if it is "[u]nsupported by substantial evidence." G.L.c. 30A, § 14 (7) (e) (1986 ed.).

Section 14 permits a court to set aside an agency decision unsupported by substantial evidence if a party’s substantial rights may have been prejudiced.

New York & Massachusetts Motor Service, Inc. v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination · filed 1988-01-19(7)(e)

A reviewing court may set aside the final determination of an administrative agency if the court “determines that the substantial rights of any party may have been prejudiced because the agency decision is — ...(e) Unsupported by substantial evidence . . . .” G. L. c. 30A, § 14.

Section 14(7) requires substantial evidence in the agency record to support a commission finding that discriminatory conduct caused emotional distress.

Franklin Publishing Co. v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination · filed 1988-03-08(7)

Upon a review of the record before the commission, a review “unaffected by the judge’s conclusions,” see Wheelock College v. Massachusetts Commn. Against Discrimination, 371 Mass. 130,132 (1976), we find “substantial” evidence, see G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7), as appearing in St. 1973, c. 1114, §3, that Franklin’s discriminatory conduct caused Gowen-Esdale emotional distress.

Section 14(7) limits review of an agency’s factual findings to whether substantial evidence supports them, absent an error of law.

Gnerre v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination · filed 1988-06-08(7)

Absent a determination that the commission committed an error of law, our review of the commission’s decision is limited to an inquiry as to whether the commission’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. See G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7).

Section 14(7) requires a court reviewing an agency decision for substantial evidence to leave witness credibility assessments to the agency.

Pyramid Co. v. Architectural Barriers Board · filed 1988-08-01(7)

The board’s determination that a substantial benefit would be gained by handicapped persons by providing elevator access to the mezzanine level is supported by substantial evidence. ... We do not make a de novo evaluation of the credibility of the evidence.

Section 14(7)(e) requires courts reviewing an agency decision for substantial evidence to consider the entire record, including evidence that detracts from the agency’s findings.

Alsabti v. Board of Registration in Medicine · filed 1989-04-10(7)(e)

The sole issue in this case is whether the board’s decision to discipline Alsabti to any degree is supported by substantial evidence as required by G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7) (e). ... We must determine whether there is substantial evidence in the record to justify those conclusions after considering the entire record “tak[ing] into account whatever in the record fairly detracts” from the weight of the evidence on which the board relied.

On judicial review, a court considers the entire record but does not substitute its view of the facts when substantial evidence supports the agency’s findings.

Wang v. Board of Registration in Medicine · filed 1989-05-04(7)(e)

We have noted the limited nature of our review under the substantial evidence standard. “While we must consider the entire record, and must take into account whatever . . . detracts from the weight of the agency’s opinion, Cohen v. Board of Registration in Pharmacy, 350 Mass. 246, 253 (1966), as long as there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the agency, we will not substitute our views as to the facts. Martin v. Director of the Div. of Employment Sec., 347 Mass. 264 (1964). McCarthy v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 342 Mass. 45 (1961).”

Section 14 places the burden on an applicant challenging an agency decision to show a lack of substantial evidence; a decision supported by evidence a reasonable mind might accept may stand if it rests on a lawful footing.

Barrington Fair Ass'n v. State Racing Commission · filed 1989-06-15(7)(e)

The applicant bears the burden of establishing that there was no substantial evidence to support the commission’s findings and conclusions. If there came before the commission evidence which a reasonable mind might accept to support the commission’s decision, that decision, assuming it rests on a lawful footing, may stand.

Section 14 requires substantial evidence to support an agency decision; an uncorroborated hearsay statement in a police report that lacks sufficient reliability does not meet that standard.

Merisme v. Board of Appeals on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies & Bonds · filed 1989-06-20(7)(e)

We conclude that the board’s upholding of the surcharge merely on the basis of the police accident report was not supported by “substantial evidence” within G. L. c. 175, § 113P, and G. L. c. 30A, § 14, and therefore was a denial of substantial justice to the plaintiff here.

Section 14 requires a reviewing court to sustain agency findings supported by substantial evidence.

Jacobs v. Rent Control Board · filed 1989-08-30

Under St. 1970, c. 843, §§ 4 and 6, the board’s order denying the certificate of eviction is reviewed by the standards of the State Administrative Procedure Act, as set forth in G. L. c. 30A, § 14, Moulton v. Brookline Rent Control Board, 385 Mass. 228, 232-233 (1982), Kahn v. Brookline Rent Control Board, 394 Mass. 709, 712 (1985), with the result that the board’s findings must be sustained if they were supported by substantial evidence.

Section 14(7) requires a court reviewing an agency finding for substantial evidence to give due weight to the agency’s expertise and discretion.

Zachs v. Department of Public Utilities · filed 1989-12-11(7)

In assessing whether “substantial evidence” existed for the department’s finding on public convenience and necessity, the court is required by c. 30A, § 14 (7), to “give due weight to the experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge of the agency, as well as to the discretionary authority conferred upon it.”

Section 14(7)(e) allows an agency finding to stand when the record provides a reasonable basis to support it.

Yebba v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board · filed 1990-03-07(7)(e)

We disagree with the judge’s determination, because we find a reasonable basis in the record before CRAB to support its determination that the report of the medical panel had not been influenced by the investigator’s reports.

Section 14(7)(e) calls for judicial review of whether agency findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Pattison v. Labor Relations Commission · filed 1991-01-24(7)(e)

The Commission’s findings for Pattison on these issues are well supported by substantial evidence, G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7)(e).

Section 14 requires a court to uphold an agency’s findings when substantial evidence supports them in the record as a whole.

D'AMOUR v. Board of Registration in Dentistry · filed 1991-03-19(7)

“The scope of review under the State Administrative Procedure Act, G. L. c. 30A, § 14 [1988 ed.], is circumscribed. . . . We must uphold the decision of the board where, considering the entire record, its findings are supported by substantial evidence.”

Section 14(7)(e) requires a reviewing court to consider the entire record, including evidence that detracts from an agency’s findings, when assessing whether those findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Board of Selectmen v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission · filed 1992-02-07(7)(e)

“Although we must consider the entire record and take into account whatever detracts from the weight of the evidence,” Vaspourakan, Ltd. v. Alcoholic Bevs. Control Commn., 401 Mass. at 351, the board has failed to point to any evidence presented to the commission which could lead us to the conclusion that the commission’s findings are not supported by substantial evidence. See G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7)(e).

Section 14(7)(e) directs courts to review agency decisions for substantial evidence; an establishment’s price list can be substantial evidence of the prices it charges.

Oznemoc, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission · filed 1992-03-02(7)(e)

We review the commission’s decision to determine whether it is supported by substantial evidence. G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7) (e) (1990 ed.). ... In common experience, an establishment’s price list is substantial evidence of the prices it charges.

Section 14 (7) requires substantial evidence review of agency decisions, with due weight given to agency expertise and deference to reasonable factual inferences.

Flint v. Commissioner of Public Welfare · filed 1992-04-10(7)

A reviewing court must determine whether an agency decision is supported by substantial evidence “upon consideration of the entire record, or such portions of the record as may be cited by the parties. The court shall give due weight to the experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge of the agency, as well as to the discretionary authority conferred upon it.” G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7) (1990 ed.). This standard of review is highly deferential to the agency on questions of fact and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom.

Section 14(7) permits a court to reverse an agency decision when its findings are unsupported by substantial evidence.

Cantella v. Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies & Bonds · filed 1993-10-29(7)

While the court must defer to the Board’s fact-finding role, including its drawing of reasonable inferences, the court determines that the Board’s findings are unsupported by substantial evidence.

Section 14 limits a court’s review of agency factfinding: when substantial evidence supports the findings, the court does not substitute its view of the facts.

Robinson v. Department of Social Services · filed 1994-06-28

As long as there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the board, the court will not substitute its views as to the facts.

Section 14(7)(e) allows a court to set aside an agency decision unsupported by substantial evidence.

Lesser v. Safety Insurance · filed 1994-12-27(7)(e)

Despite the limited scope of judicial review granted to the Court in this appeal, this Court may set aside the agency decision if it is unsupported by substantial evidence. ... Given the above, this Court finds, as a matter of law, that the Board’s decision affirming the surcharge was unsupported by substantial evidence.

Section 14(7) permits a court to set aside agency findings that are arbitrary or unsupported by substantial evidence.

Herridge v. Board of Registration in Medicine · filed 1995-04-20(7)

“While the task of assessing the credibility of witnesses is one uniquely within an agency’s discretion (School Comm. of Wellesley v. Labor Relations Comm’n, 376 Mass. 112, 120 [1978]), this court may modify or set aside findings and conclusions that are arbitrary or unsupported by substantial evidence. See G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7) [1992 ed.]; Embers of Salisbury, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Comm’n, 401 Mass. 526, 529 (1988).” Bettencourt v. Board of Registratian in Medicine, 408 Mass. 221, 227 (1990). ... In the face of conflicting evidence, and inconsistencies in the patient’s testimony, the board could not choose to rely on portions of that testimony, reject other, significant portions of it, and fail to explain its reasons for doing so.

Section 14(7)(e) permits a court to set aside an agency decision that is unsupported by substantial evidence.

Gray v. Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies & Bonds · filed 1995-06-27(7)(e)

An agency’s decision may be set aside if it is unsupported by substantial evidence. G.L.c. 30A, §14(7)(e); Olde Towne Liquor Store, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission, 372 Mass. 152,153 (1977).

Section 14(7) permits a court to disturb an agency decision when it lacks substantial evidence or has another listed legal defect.

Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Commissioner of Insurance · filed 1995-06-28(7)(e)

Our review of the commissioner’s actions is governed by G. L. c. 176K, § 7 (i), which states that we are limited to a review of the record of proceedings before the commissioner, and we are to be guided by the provisions of G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7) (1992 ed.). Thus, we shall not disturb the commissioner’s decision unless it is based on an error of law, unsupported by substantial evidence, arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.

Section 14(7) permits a court to reverse or modify an agency decision when a lack of substantial evidence may have prejudiced a party’s rights.

Sullivan v. Safety Insurance Co. · filed 1995-06-28(7)

The Court may reverse or modify an administrative agency’s decision if it determines that the rights of any party may have been prejudiced because the agency decision is unsupported by substantial evidence. G.L.c. 30A, §14(7).

Section 14 permits a court to set aside an agency decision when the record lacks substantial evidence.

Kates v. Board of Education · filed 1995-07-17(7)(e)

The record does not contain substantial evidence to support the Board’s decision.

Section 14(7) permits a court to reverse an agency decision unsupported by substantial evidence in the record.

Kelly v. Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies & Bonds · filed 1995-11-29(7)

This review is confined to the record, except in cases of irregularities, and the court may affirm the decision of the agency, remand the matter for further proceedings, or set aside or modify the decision if it determines that the substantial rights of a party may have been prejudiced because of an error of law, or that the decision is unsupported by substantial evidence, is unwarranted by the facts found in the record, or is arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion, c. 30A, §14(7). ... Therefore, the Board’s decision was unsupported by substantial evidence.

Section 14 allows a court to set aside an agency decision when the evidence points overwhelmingly to a contrary conclusion.

Pyfrom v. Commissioner of Public Welfare · filed 1996-01-22(7)(e)

An agency’s determination may be set aside if “the evidence . . . points to an overwhelming probability of the contrary.” ... This evidence points to an overwhelming probability that the plaintiff demonstrated “substantial involvement in her child’s life” sufficient to satisfy the “care and control” requirement of the department’s regulations.

Section 14 permits a court to set aside an agency decision unsupported by substantial evidence and requires the court to give due weight to the agency’s expertise.

Mastroianni v. Public Employees Retirement Administration · filed 1996-02-15(7)(e)

In reviewing an agency decision, the court “shall give due weight to the experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge of the agency, as well as to the discretionary authority conferred upon it.” G.L.c. 30A, §14 (7) (1992 ed.). ... Viewed in light of this standard, the CRAB decision is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 14(7) permits a reviewing court to remand an agency decision that is unsupported by substantial evidence.

DeSousa v. Department of Social Services · filed 1996-04-18(7)

Plaintiff seeks judicial review pursuant to G.L.c. 30A, §14(7). This provision allows a reviewing court to reverse, remand, or modify a state administrative agency’s decision if the court determines that the substantial rights of any party may have been prejudiced because the agency’s decision was based on errors of law, unsupported by substantial evidence, or arbitrary and capricious.

Section 14(7) requires a reviewing court to affirm an agency’s factual findings unless they are unsupported by substantial evidence.

School Committee v. Labor Relations Commission · filed 1996-04-24(7)

We must affirm the commission’s findings unless they are unsupported by substantial evidence. G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7). ... We conclude that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the commission’s findings and that the commission employed the appropriate legal standards; thus, we affirm.

Section 14(7) permits a court to set aside an agency decision that is unsupported by substantial evidence.

Sacco v. Premier Insurance · filed 1996-10-17(7)

This court may affirm the decision of the Board, remand the matter for further proceedings, or set aside or modify the decision if it determines that the substantial rights of a party may have been prejudiced because of an error of law, or because the decision is unsupported by substantial evidence, is unwarranted by the facts found in the record, or is arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion. G.L.c. 30A, §14(7). ... In the instant case, the decision of the Board was unsupported by substantial evidence.

Section 14(7)(e) permits a court to set aside an agency decision when its findings lack substantial evidence.

Morrison v. McIntire · filed 1996-11-26(7)(e)

The hearing officer’s conclusion that “it is not reasonable to believe that the [plaintiffs] sister would require the [plaintiff] to go into debt to pay for her babysitting services” is not supported by any evidence, much less “substantial evidence.” G.L.c. 30A §14(7)(e).

Section 14 permits a court to set aside an agency decision that lacks substantial evidence—evidence a reasonable mind could accept as adequate to support the decision.

Prescott v. Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies & Bonds · filed 1997-01-10(7)(e)

The Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies and Bonds (board) upheld the surcharge, but on Prescott’s appeal under G. L. c. 175, § 113P, a Superior Court judge determined that the board’s decision was “unsupported by substantial evidence.” G. L. c. 30A, § 14. We affirm. ... We agree with the judge that that conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence. “ ‘Substantial evidence’ means such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”

Section 14(7) requires a court to affirm an agency decision if substantial evidence supports it and it is free from legal error.

Cahalen v. Commissioner of the Department of Employment & Training · filed 1996-08-06(7)

We must affirm the DET’s decision if it is supported by substantial evidence and not based on an error of law. G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7).

Section 14(7) requires a reviewing court to consider the entire record and uphold an agency decision unless substantial evidence does not support it.

Foxboro Harness, Inc. v. State Racing Commission · filed 1997-01-23(7)

The reviewing court, after considering the entire record, must sustain the commission’s decision unless it is unsupported by substantial evidence.

Section 14(8) requires a court reviewing an agency decision for substantial evidence to consider the entire record, including evidence that detracts from the agency’s finding.

Edward E. v. Department of Social Services · filed 1997-04-16(8)

Even then, our review does not end. “Significantly, we are not required to affirm the board merely on a finding that the record contains evidence from which a rational mind might draw the desired inference. Our determination must be made ‘upon consideration of the entire record.’ Cohen v. Board of Registration in Pharmacy, 350 Mass. 246, 253 (1966), quoting from G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (8) (State Administrative Procedure Act).

Section 14(7)(e) permits a court to vacate an agency decision unsupported by substantial evidence.

Masciarelli v. Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies & Bonds · filed 1997-05-21(7)(e)

Among the reasons the court may vacate an agency’s decision is that it was “unsupported by substantial evidence.” G.L.c. 30A, §14(7)(e).

Section 14(7)(g) allows a court to modify an agency decision when a legal error, lack of substantial evidence, or arbitrary or capricious action may have prejudiced a party’s substantial rights.

Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority v. Architectural Access Board · filed 1997-07-15(7)(g)

The Court can review and modify a state administrative agency’s decision if it determines that the substantial rights of any party may have been prejudiced because the agency decision was based on a violation of law, unsupported by substantial evidence, or was arbitrary or capricious. G.L.c. 30A, §14(7)(g). ... In short, although the Court finds the evidence upon which the Board based its findings of substantial benefit to the handicapped to be conjectural, intuitive and not based on substantial evidence in the record, neither did the MBTA, which had the burden of proof, provide any substantial evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, the Court does not consider that it is empowered to reverse the findings of the Board in these circumstances.

Section 14(7)(e) permits a reviewing court to set aside an agency decision that is unsupported by substantial evidence.

Rum Runners, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission · filed 1997-07-29(7)(e)

In the circumstances, a reviewing court may set aside the decision of an agency such as the ABCC only if that decision is unsupported by substantial evidence.