30A Mass. Gen. Laws § 14

Section 14(7) requires courts reviewing agency decisions to assess whether they are supported by substantial evidence and are neither arbitrary, capricious, nor contrary to law.

Quinn v. Rent Control Board · filed 1998-08-27(7)

To the extent Red Hill takes issue with the use of 1979 as base year (for which certain actual records could not be furnished), the partial disallowance of the garbage expense for 1990, and the amortization figure for 1995, the board’s decisions grounded on the hearing officer’s findings appear (as the judge held) based on substantial evidence and within the board’s discretion, not arbitrary or capricious or otherwise contrary to law (to recur to the text of G. L. c. 30A, § 14[7]).

Section 14(7)(c) allows a court to set aside an agency decision based on an error of law without deferring to the agency’s legal conclusion.

Town of Wakefield v. Labor Relations Commission · filed 1998-10-09(7)(c)

That proposition was wrong as matter of law. “We generally accord considerable deference to the commission’s disposition of a charge. . . . No such deference is appropriate, however, when the commission commits an error of law. See G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7)(c) (agency decision ‘[b]ased upon an error of law’).”

Section 14(7) permits a court to remedy an agency decision that prejudices substantial rights through legal error, arbitrary action, or lack of substantial evidence.

Beger v. Acting Commissioner · filed 2000-05-01(7)

The court may compel any action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed if it determines that the substantial rights of any party have been prejudiced when the agency decision is: 1) based upon an error of law; 2) arbitrary or capricious; or 3) unsupported by substantial evidence. See G.L.c. 30A, §14(7)(c), (e), (g). ... The Court finds that the Division’s decision is based on an error of law, is arbitrary and is not supported by substantial evidence. As a result, Ms. Beger’s right to breast reconstruction, which is a substantial right, has been unlawfully withheld and unreasonably delayed.

An agency determination involving a question of law is subject to de novo judicial review.

Flemings v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board · filed 2000-05-08(7)(c)

Where an agency determination involves a question of law, it is subject to de novo judicial review. Raytheon Co. v. Director of the Div. of Employment Sec., 364 Mass. 593, 595 (1974), citing G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (8) (c) (predecessor to G. L. c. 30A, § 14 [7] [c]).

Section 14(7) limits when a court may reverse or modify an agency decision and requires the appealing party to show prejudice to substantial rights.

Steele v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board · filed 1999-11-19(7)

The court may reverse or modify the agency decision only “if it determines that the substantial rights of any party may have been prejudiced because the agency decision is unsupported by substantial evidence; or arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” G.L.c. 30A, §14(7).

Section 14(7) requires a reviewing court to examine whether an agency decision has adequate evidentiary support and reflects reasoned decision making.

Patterson v. Liberty Mutual Insurance · filed 2000-02-18(7)

On such an appeal, which is to be reviewed in accordance with the standards of G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7)(a)-(d), (f) & (g), “we consider . . . whether the decision is factually warranted and not ‘[ajrbitrary or capricious,’ in the sense of having adequate evidentiary and factual support and disclosing reasoned decision making within the particular requirements governing a workers’ compensation dispute.” Scheffer’s Case, 419 Mass. 251, 258 (1994).

Section 14(7) limits when a court may set aside an agency decision and permits de novo review of legal questions.

Cronin v. Commissioner of the Division of Medical Assistance · filed 2000-04-24(7)

While the Court may set aside the decision of the agency only as permitted by G.L.c. 30A, §14(7), “to the extent that an agency determination involves a question of law, it is subject to de novo judicial review.” Haverill Municipal Hospital v. Comm’r of the Div. of Medical Assistance, 45 Mass.App.Ct 386, 390 (1998) (emphasis added) quoting Raytheon Co. v. Director of the Div. of Employment Security, 364 Mass. 593, 595 (1974).

Section 14’s standard of review still applies when a hearing officer adopts proposed findings of fact verbatim.

Bergin v. Galvin · filed 2000-05-18

The fact that more than 94 percent of the Hearing Officer’s findings of fact were taken verbatim from the Securities Division’s proposed findings of fact does not void his findings nor displace the standard of review set forth in G.L.c. 30A, §14.

Section 14(7)(g) permits a court to reverse an agency decision that is arbitrary or an abuse of discretion.

Gnanaratnam v. Hanover Insurance · filed 2000-08-18(7)(g)

Nevertheless, from the administrative record presented, I conclude that the board’s decision was arbitrary and an abuse of discretion. See G.L.c. 30A, §14(7)(g). It must be reversed.

Section 14(7) permits a court to compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed when an error of law prejudices a party’s substantial rights; the court may order payment without remand.

Lawrence General Hospital v. Bullen · filed 2000-09-25(7)

The court may compel any action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed if it determines that the substantial rights of any party have been prejudiced when the agency decision is: 1) based upon an error of law; 2) arbitrary or capricious; or 3) unsupported by substantial evidence. See G.L.c. 30A, §14(7)(c), (e), (g). This court finds that the Division’s decision is based on an error of law. As a result, the plaintiffs right to payment, a substantial right, has been unlawfully withheld and unreasonably delayed. The court will order that payment be made. In the circumstances of this case, there is no need to remand the matter to the Board of Hearings for further consideration.

Section 14(7) requires a reviewing court to consider whether an agency decision rests on an error of law or lacks substantial evidence.

Heublein, Inc. v. Capital Distributing Co. · filed 2001-07-26(7)

Like the courts below, we review the commission’s decision pursuant to G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7), to determine whether, as Heublein claims, it was based on an error of law, and whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence, that is, “such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the agency’s conclusion.”

Section 14(7) permits a court to set aside an agency decision that lacks substantial evidence or rests on an error of law.

O'Donnell v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board · filed 2001-08-28(7)

Based upon the foregoing analysis, the court concludes that CRAB’S decision is not supported by substantial evidence because O’Donnell did in fact make a timely effort to buy-back all of his DPW time. The Court also concludes that CRAB’S failure to exercise its power to correct an honest error prejudicing O’Donnell constituted an error of law.

Section 14(7) directs courts reviewing agency decisions to check for errors of law and substantial evidence.

Capital Distributing Co. v. Heublein, Inc. · filed 2000-10-26(7)

The familiar standards of review are set forth in G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7). ... We review to determine whether there was error of law, and whether the decision of the ABCC is supported by substantial evidence, that is “such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion,” Seagram Distil. Co. v. Alcoholic Bevs. Control Commn., 401 Mass. 713, 721 (1988) (defining “substantial evidence”).

Section 14 permits review of agency decisions for legal error and allows factual findings to be disturbed when they lack substantial evidence.

Commissioner of Revenue v. Jafra Cosmetics, Inc. · filed 2001-01-25

We review decisions by the board for errors of law, Towle v. Commissioner of Revenue, 397 Mass. 599, 601 (1986), and shall disturb the board’s factual findings only if not supported by substantial evidence. G. L. c. 30A, § 14.

Section 14(7) permits a court to affirm, remand, set aside, or modify an agency decision when the decision prejudices a party’s substantial rights on a listed ground.

Orell v. CRAB · filed 2001-02-02(7)

Pursuant to G.L.c. 30A, §14(7) the court may either affirm, remand, set aside or modify an agency’s decision “if it determines that the substantial rights of any pariy may have been prejudiced because the agency’s decision is: ... (g) arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law."

Section 14(7) permits a court to reverse, remand, or modify an agency decision when specified defects may have prejudiced a party’s substantial rights.

Braintree Housing Authority v. Architectural Access Board · filed 2001-09-17(7)

Pursuant to G.L.c. 30A, §14(7), this court may reverse, remand, or modify an agency decision if “the substantial rights of any party may have been prejudiced” because the agency decision is based on an error of law or on unlawful procedure, is arbitrary and capricious, or is unwarranted by facts found by the agency and supported by substantial evidence.

Section 14 permits a court to vacate and remand an agency decision affected by an error of law.

Green v. Town of Brookline · filed 2001-10-30(7)(c)

Errors of law prevent our deferral to the reviewing board; therefore we must vacate the decision of the DIA, and remand the matter to the DIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Section 14 allows a court to set aside an agency decision for an error of law; the court reviews the agency’s legal conclusions independently.

City of Boston v. Bureau of Special Education Appeals · filed 2002-09-27

The plaintiff has sustained its burden under G.L.c. 30A, § 14 of showing that the Bureau erred as a matter of law in finding that Juan P. had a protected property interest in attending Brighton H.S.’s graduation ceremony. This court is not bound by the Bureau’s error of law. Accordingly, judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the Bureau is warranted.

Section 14(7) permits a court to reverse or modify an agency decision that may prejudice a party’s substantial rights because it lacks substantial evidence, is arbitrary or capricious, abuses discretion, or is contrary to law.

Boston Police Department v. Munroe · filed 2002-03-22(7)

This Court may reverse or modify the agency decision “if it determines that the substantial rights of any party may have been prejudiced because the agency decision is unsupported by substantial evidence; or arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” G.L.c. 30A, §14(7).

Section 14(7) requires a party seeking to overturn an agency decision to show both a violation of a listed review standard and prejudice to a substantial right.

Distasio v. Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies & Bonds · filed 2003-02-19(7)

To have an agency’s decision overturned under G.L.c. 30A, §14(7), Distasio must not only show that the board violated one or more of the standards of review listed in c. 30A, §14(7), but also that her substantial right has been prejudiced by the agency’s action. ... Distasio has not been deprived of any substantial right.

Section 14(7)(b) permits a reviewing court to set aside an agency decision that prejudices a party’s substantial rights because the agency exceeded its jurisdiction.

Board of Selectmen v. Smith · filed 2003-08-11(7)(b)

Although we give due deference to commission decisions, a reviewing court may set aside such a decision if the substantial rights of any party have been prejudiced because the agency decision was unlawful for, among other reasons, exceeding its jurisdiction.

Section 14(7)(e)'s substantial-evidence ground does not apply to appeals from decisions of the workers’ compensation reviewing board.

Murphy's Case · filed 2002-02-04(7)(e)

Clause (e) of G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7), which authorizes a reviewing court to set aside an agency decision if it is “unsupported by substantial evidence,” does not, under § 12(2) of the Act, apply to appeals from decisions of the board.

Section 14 places the burden of showing agency error on the party seeking judicial review and requires substantial deference to the agency’s decision.

Opinion of the Justices to the Senate · filed 2002-03-14

Furthermore, § 6 of the proposed law provides for judicial review under G. L. c. 30A, § 14, which places the burden of demonstrating error on the party seeking review (here, the contracting party) and which requires the reviewing court to give substantial deference to the agency’s decision.

Section 14(7) permits a court to set aside or modify an agency adjudicatory decision for legal error, procedural defects, lack of substantial evidence, or arbitrary or capricious action.

Fisch v. Board of Registration in Medicine · filed 2002-06-13(7)

Accordingly, we may set aside or modify an adjudicatory decision of the board only if the decision was legally erroneous, procedurally defective, unsupported by substantial evidence, arbitrary or capricious, or contained one or more of three other enumerated defects not at issue in this case.

Section 14(7) permits a court to reverse, remand, or modify an agency decision when specified errors may have prejudiced a party’s substantial rights.

Brown-Forman Corp. v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission · filed 2004-06-14(7)

Under G.L.c. 30A, §14(7), a reviewing court may reverse, remand, or modify an agency decision if “the substantial rights of any party may have been prejudiced” because the agency decision is based on an error of law or on unlawful procedure, is arbitrary and capricious, or is unwarranted by facts found by the agency supported by substantial evidence.

Section 14(7) permits a party to challenge an agency decision as contrary to law or unsupported by substantial evidence.

Cruz v. Waldman · filed 2005-04-08(7)

A party can demonstrate a decision’s invalidity by showing, among other things, that it is contrary to law or is unsupported by substantial evidence. G.L.c. 30A, §14(7)(a)-(g).

Section 14(7) permits a court to set aside an agency decision only on the grounds it specifies, including an error of law.

Trustees of Health v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination · filed 2004-02-19(7)

Under this statute, the court may set aside a commission’s decision only on those grounds set out in §14(7)(a) through (g).

Section 14 limits the grounds on which a court may set aside an agency decision.

Moot v. Golledge · filed 2005-05-04(7)

An agency’s decision may be set aside by the court only on the grounds set forth in section 14 of chapter 30A of the General Laws of Massachusetts.

Section 14(7) permits a reviewing judge to set aside an unsupported MCAD emotional distress award or reduce it to an amount supported by the evidence.

Stonehill College v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination · filed 2004-05-06(7)

Judges acting under G. L. c. 30A in reviewing emotional distress damage awards by the commission should keep the above in mind. ... Awards that are not sufficiently supported should be set aside or may be remitted to a sum deemed by the judge to be sufficient compensation in keeping with the evidence before the commission and the applicable burden of proof.

Section 14(7)(g) permits a court to reverse an agency decision as arbitrary and capricious when the agency rejects consistent firsthand testimony on the basis of scant hearsay and speculation without adequately explaining its rejection.

Scipione v. Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies & Bonds · filed 2005-02-22(7)(g)

In the circumstances of this case, the Board’s decision to reject the first-hand account of the incident offered by the plaintiff that was offered orally in testimony under oath and was fully consistent with earlier written accounts by the plaintiff, and then In that case, a contradictory account on the basis of (1) scant hearsay evidence of uncertain origin, (2) evidence with respect to the deployment of the plaintiffs airbags, and (3) evidence of the damage caused to the plaintiffs vehicle was arbitrary and capricious within the meaning of G.L.c. 30A, §14(7)(g).

Section 14(7)(c) permits reversal of a Civil Service Commission decision that is legally untenable because it rests on an error of law.

Boston Police Department v. Tolland · filed 2005-05-18(7)(c)

In the vocabulary of civil service litigation, the Commission’s decision is “legally untenable.” It constitutes an error of law within the meaning of G.L.c. 30A, §14(7)(c).

Section 14(7) permits a court to reverse or modify an agency decision when the decision may have prejudiced a party’s substantial rights because it lacks substantial evidence, is arbitrary or capricious, abuses discretion, or is contrary to law.

Doe v. Sex Offender Registry Board · filed 2003-09-15(7)

Under G.L.c. 30A, §14, this Court may only reverse or modify the Board’s decision “if it determines that the substantial rights of any party may have been prejudiced because the agency decision is unsupported by substantial evidence; or arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” G.L.c. 30A, §14(7).

Section 14(7) allows a court to reverse or modify an agency decision when substantial rights may have been prejudiced by a lack of substantial evidence, arbitrary or capricious action, abuse of discretion, or legal error.

Nathanson v. Commonwealth · filed 2003-09-16(7)

This court may reverse or modify the agency decision “if it determines that the substantial rights of any party may have been prejudiced” because the decision is “unsupported by substantial evidence,” or is “arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.” G.L.c. 30A, § 14(7).

Section 14(7) allows a reviewing court to set aside or modify an agency decision for an error of law, an excess of agency authority, or arbitrary or capricious action.

City of New Bedford v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination · filed 2003-12-02(7)

As provided in G. L. c. 151B, § 6, judicial review proceeds under the well-established standards mandated by G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7): the reviewing court may set aside or modify the decision because, among other reasons, it exceeds the authority of the agency, is based on an error of law, or is arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.

Section 14(7) provides for judicial review of an MCAD decision for substantial evidence and errors of law.

Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination · filed 2004-05-12(7)

“Our review is limited to determining whether the commissioner’s findings and conclusions were supported by substantial evidence, and whether there was an error of law.” College-Town, Div. of Interco, Inc. v. Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimination, 400 Mass. 156, 170 (1987), citing G. L. c. 151B, § 6, and G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7).

Section 14(7) directs courts to uphold an agency decision unless it rests on legal error, lacks substantial evidence, is arbitrary or capricious, or otherwise fails to comply with law.

MCI WorldCom Communications, Inc. v. Department of Telecommunications & Energy · filed 2004-06-21(7)

We shall uphold an agency’s decision unless it is based on an error of law, unsupported by substantial evidence, unwarranted by facts found on the record as submitted, arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7).

Section 14(7) permits a court to modify or set aside an agency decision when legal error, lack of substantial evidence, or arbitrary and capricious action prejudices a party’s substantial rights.

Connolly v. Suffolk County Sheriff's Department · filed 2004-09-30(7)

An administrative agency’s final decision is most commonly modified or set aside on judicial review where the court determines that the aggrieved party’s substantial rights were prejudiced because the agency’s decision was based upon an error of law, was unsupported by substantial evidence, or was arbitrary and capricious. G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7).

Section 14 requires a challenger to show that an agency decision lacks substantial evidence, is arbitrary or capricious, abuses discretion, or is contrary to law.

Goldberg v. Board of Health · filed 2005-07-12

As we have determined that the regulations themselves are appropriate, the plaintiffs must prove that the factual determinations and adjudicative order appealed from are “unsupported by substantial evidence, unwarranted by facts found on the record as submitted, arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” ... See G. L. c. 30A, § 14.

Section 14 requires a reviewing court to affirm an agency decision unless it rests on an error of law or is arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.

Sheriff v. Labor Relations Commission · filed 2004-03-18(7)

Likewise, we must affirm the commission’s decision unless the decision is based upon an error of law, G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7)(c), or, in the words of the statute, is “[arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7)(g), as amended by St. 1973, c. 1114, § 3.

Section 14(7) requires a court to uphold an agency decision unless a ground for reversal, such as lack of substantial evidence or arbitrary and capricious action, is shown.

Galeas v. Chelsea Housing Authority · filed 2004-08-08(7)

In such a review, the agency’s decision must be upheld unless it is, among other factors, unsupported by substantial evidence; based upon an error of law; in excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency; or arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. G.L.c. 30A, §14(7). ... In light of this standard, this Court finds that the CHA’s determination is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 14(7) permits a court to modify or set aside an agency decision when the petitioner demonstrates a listed defect, including legal error, a procedural defect, lack of substantial evidence, or arbitrary or capricious action.

Weinberg v. Board of Registration in Medicine · filed 2005-03-16(7)

Under G. L. c. 112, § 64, a person whose license to practice medicine has been revoked may petition the court to “enter a decree revising or reversing the decision of the board, in accordance with the standards for review provided” in G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7). ... The court may modify or set aside the board’s final decision only if the petitioner demonstrates that the decision was legally erroneous, procedurally defective, unsupported by substantial evidence, arbitrary or capricious, or contained one or more of three other enumerated defects not at issue here.

Section 14(7) permits a court to vacate or modify an agency decision when it prejudices substantial rights because it lacks substantial evidence or is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or contrary to law.

Gargano & Associates v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination · filed 2005-10-28(7)

However, a court may vacate or modify an agency decision “if it determines that the substantial rights of any parly may have been prejudiced” because the decision was “unsupported by substantial evidence,” or was “arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.” G.L.c. 30A, §14(7).

Section 14(7) allows a court to set aside an agency decision only when a specified error may have prejudiced a party’s substantial rights.

Rainbow Development, LLC v. Commonwealth Department of Industrial Accidents · filed 2005-11-19(7)

The agency’s decision may be modified or set aside only if the reviewing court “determines that the substantial rights of [a] party may have been prejudiced” because the agency decision is in excess of the statutory authority of the agency, based upon an error of law, unsupported by substantial evidence, arbitrary or capricious, or an abuse of discretion. M.G.L.c. 30A, §14(7).

Section 14 calls for setting aside an agency decision based on an error of law or unsupported by substantial evidence.

Shafer v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board · filed 2006-01-23

Moreover, regardless of the “narrow and highly deferential standard” of review to be accorded to CRAB’s adjudications in Sorensen, Dufort, and Shafer, see Sugrue v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board, 45 Mass.App.Ct. 1, 5 n.5 (1998), G.L.c. 30A, §14 calls for setting aside CRAB’s decisions if they were based upon an error of law or unsupported by substantial evidence.

Section 14(7) permits a court to reverse an agency decision for legal error, lack of substantial evidence, or abuse of discretion.

Melican v. Morrisey · filed 2006-03-13(7)

Therefore, pursuant to G.L.c. 30A, §14, the Commissioner’s decision to modify the Hearing Officer’s reasonable decision is itself based upon an error of law, unsupported by substantial evidence, unwarranted by facts found by this Court on the record, and an abuse of discretion.

Section 14(7) permits a court to set aside an agency decision only on the grounds it lists, including error of law.

Leeman v. Cote · filed 2006-08-30(7)

Under chapter 30A, the court may set aside an agency decision only if it suffers from one of six categorical defects set forth in G.L.c. 30A, §14(7).

Section 14(7)(c) permits reversal of an agency decision for an error of law.

College News Service v. Department of Industrial Accidents · filed 2006-09-14(7)(c)

The error of law under c. 30A, §14(7)(c) requires reversal.

Section 14(7) permits a court to modify or set aside an agency decision only if the petitioner shows that the decision fails to meet the section’s standards.

Kobrin v. Board of Registration in Medicine · filed 2005-08-11(7)

The court may modify or set aside the board’s final decision only if the petitioner demonstrates that the decision was not in accordance with standards set forth in G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7).

Section 14(7) permits a court to modify or set aside an agency decision when the petitioner demonstrates an enumerated defect, including legal error, procedural defect, or lack of substantial evidence.

Ingalls v. Board of Registration in Medicine · filed 2005-11-14(7)

“The court may modify or set aside the board’s final decision only if the petitioner demonstrates that the decision was legally erroneous, procedurally defective, unsupported by substantial evidence, arbitrary or capricious, or contained one or more of three other enumerated defects not at issue here.”

Section 14 limits judicial review of an agency decision to whether it lacks substantial evidence, is arbitrary and capricious, or rests on an error of law.

Friends & Fishers of Edgartown Great Pond, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Protection · filed 2006-06-01

Under G. L. c. 30A, § 14, we review the findings below only to determine whether the agency’s decision was unsupported by substantial evidence, arbitrary and capricious, or otherwise based on an error of law.

Section 14(7) permits a court to reverse or modify an agency decision when the decision prejudices a party’s substantial rights because it lacks substantial evidence, is arbitrary or capricious, or is contrary to law.

American Zurich Insurance v. Department of Industrial Accidents · filed 2006-06-01(7)

This court may reverse or modify the agency decision “if it determines that the substantial rights of any party may have been prejudiced” because the decision is “unsupported by substantial evidence,” or is “arbitraiy or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.” G.L.c. 30A, §14(7). Thus, this court will affirm an agency’s decision unless the findings and conclusions are unsupported by substantial evidence or based on an error of law.

Section 14(7) calls for judicial review of whether an agency applied the correct legal principles and whether its findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Bleich v. Maimonides School · filed 2006-06-16(7)

We review the board’s decision “to determine whether the review examiner applied the correct legal principles in denying unemployment compensation benefits to the plaintiff [and] whether [his] findings are supported by substantial evidence.” Quintal v. Commissioner of the Dep’t of Employment & Training, 418 Mass. 855, 858-859 (1994). See Guarino v. Director of the Div. of Employment Sec., 393 Mass. 89, 92 (1984). See also G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7).

Section 14(7) requires a court to uphold an agency decision unless a specified ground for reversal, such as legal error or lack of substantial evidence, is present.

Massachusetts Sober Housing Corp. v. Automatic Sprinkler Appeals Board · filed 2006-07-12(7)

Under G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7), “[w]e shall uphold an agency’s decision unless it is based on an error of law, unsupported by substantial evidence, unwarranted by facts found on the record as submitted, arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”

Section 14(7) allows a court to reverse or modify an agency decision that prejudices substantial rights because it lacks substantial evidence, is arbitrary or capricious, or rests on an error of law.

Cedarmere Ventures, LLC v. Cohassett Sewer Commission · filed 2006-08-22(7)

This court may reverse or modify the agency decision “if it determines that the substantial rights of any party may have been prejudiced” because the decision is “unsupported by substantial evidence,” or is “arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.” G.L.c. 30A, §14(7). Thus, this court will affirm an agency’s decision unless the findings and conclusions are unsupported by substantial evidence or based on an error of law.

Section 14(7) allows a court to set aside an agency decision that lacks substantial evidence, is arbitrary or capricious, abuses discretion, or is contrary to law.

Coverall North America, Inc. v. Commissioner of the Division of Unemployment Assistance · filed 2006-12-12(7)

The agency’s decision may only be set aside if the court determines that the decision is unsupported by substantial evidence or is arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not in accordance with law. G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7).

Section 14(7) permits a court to set aside an agency decision for an error of law or lack of substantial evidence despite the usual deference to agencies.

Tabroff v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board · filed 2007-05-23(7)

The deference normally accorded to an administrative agency’s decision is no longer appropriate when that agency commits an error of law, G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7)(c), or its decision is unsupported by substantial evidence, G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7)(e).

Section 14(7)(g) permits a court to set aside an agency award as arbitrary when its amount has no factual basis or reasoned explanation.

Dalbec's Case · filed 2007-06-08(7)(g)

The administrative record contains no factual source or reasoned explanation for the $900 figure. It is arbitrary within the meaning of G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7)(g).

Section 14 allows a court to set aside an agency decision that prejudices a party’s substantial rights because the agency exceeded its statutory authority.

Coutinho v. Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies & Bonds · filed 2007-10-26

Under G.L.c. 30A, §14, this Court may affirm, remand, set aside, or modify an agency’s decision if it determines that a party’s substantial rights were prejudiced because the agency’s decision was in excess of statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency. ... Here, the ten-year delay caused a lapse in the Board’s authority that requires this Court to order the Board to reverse its decision.

Section 14(7) requires courts reviewing agency decisions to give due weight to the agency’s expertise and permits reversal on specified grounds, including lack of substantial evidence or arbitrary or capricious action.

Commissioner of the Division of Unemployment Assistance v. Town Taxi of Cape Cod, Inc. · filed 2007-03-12(7)

“The agency’s decision may only be set aside if the court determines that the decision is unsupported by substantial evidence or is arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not in accordance with law. G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7).”

Section 14(7) provides grounds for setting aside an agency decision, including legal error, lack of substantial evidence, and abuse of discretion.

DSCI Corp. v. Department of Telecommunications & Energy · filed 2007-08-02(7)

We shall uphold an agency’s decision unless it is based on an error of law, unsupported by substantial evidence, unwarranted by facts found on the record as submitted, arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7).

Section 14(7) requires a court to uphold an agency decision unless it is legally erroneous, unsupported by substantial evidence, arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to law.

City of Cambridge v. Department of Telecommunications & Energy · filed 2007-10-24(7)

We shall uphold an agency’s decision unless it is based on an error of law, unsupported by substantial evidence, unwarranted by facts found on the record as submitted, arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7).

Section 14(7) subjects MCAD decisions to judicial review for arbitrariness, caprice, or conflict with the weight of the evidence.

Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination · filed 2008-01-04(7)

MCAD decisions are subject to review pursuant to the standards set forth in G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7), and thus cannot be arbitrary, capricious, or against the weight of the evidence. The MCAD reasonably concluded that, five years after the alleged discrimination, the appropriate remedy was requiring the MBTA to hire Marquez rather than simply engage, in an interactive and investigative process in an attempt to accommodate him.

Section 14(7) permits a court to set aside an agency decision that lacks substantial evidence or is arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or contrary to law.

Colson v. Sex Offender Registry Board · filed 2008-02-19(7)

The decision may only be set aside if the court determines that the decision is unsupported by substantial evidence or is arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not in accordance with law. G.L.c. 30A, §14(7)(e), (g).

Section 14 supplies the standards for reviewing an agency decision appealed under G.L.c. 22C, §43, including error of law, lack of substantial evidence, and arbitrary or capricious action.

Devereaux v. Colonel of the Massachusetts State Police · filed 2008-02-08(7)

Pursuant to the relevant portion of G.L.c. 30A, §14 and as argued by Devereaux, the standard of review to be used for the claim based on G.L.c. 22C, §43, is whether the agency’s decision was based on an error of law, whether there was substantial evidence to support the conclusion reached by the agency, and whether the agency action was arbitrary and capricious.

Section 14(7) permits a court to reverse, remand, or modify an agency decision for legal error, unlawful procedure, arbitrariness, or lack of substantial evidence.

Raymond v. Civil Service Commission · filed 2008-09-09(7)

Pursuant to G.L.c. 30A, §14(7), this Court may reverse, remand, or modify an agency decision if that decision is based on an error of law or on unlawful procedure, is arbitrary and capricious, or if there is a lack of substantial evidence to support the decision. ... The Court concludes that the Commission committed an error of law in failing to consider the effect of Chief Wright’s improper motivations on the budget approval process.

An earning capacity figure is arbitrary under § 14(7)(g) when the decision lacks a factual source for the figure and a reasoned explanation.

Eady's Case · filed 2008-09-29(7)(g)

A decision that does not contain such a factual source, along with a reasoned explanation, is “arbitrary within the meaning of G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7)(g).”

Section 14(7) permits a court to reverse, remand, or modify an agency decision when specified errors may have prejudiced a party’s substantial rights.

Allen v. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection · filed 2008-10-23(7)

Pursuant to G.L.c. 30A, §14(7), this court may reverse, remand, or modify an agency decision if “the substantial rights of any party may have been prejudiced” because the agency decision is based on an error of law or an unlawful procedure, arbitrary and capricious or unwarranted by facts found by the agency and supported by substantial evidence. ... After a complete review of the administrative record submitted to this court, this court has determined that the decision of the agency the DEP did not constitute errors of law, was not subject to an unlawful procedure, and that their decision was not arbitrary and capricious.

Section 14(7) limits when a court may reverse, remand, or modify an agency decision to cases in which an identified flaw may have prejudiced a party’s substantial rights.

Astukewicz v. Executive Office of Health & Human Services · filed 2009-02-02(7)

The court may reverse, remand, or modify an agency decision only if “the substantial rights of any party may have been prejudiced” by an agency decision that is based on an error of law or on unlawful procedure, is arbitrary and capricious, or is unwarranted by the facts found by the agency and unsupported by substantial evidence. G.L.c. 30A, §14(7).

Section 14 permits a court to set aside an agency decision as arbitrary and capricious when the agency fails to follow its published policies.

Glass v. Town of Marblehead Board of Health · filed 2009-02-27

However, in the ordinary course, a Court cannot countenance an agency’s failure to follow its own published policies because the agency’s action would have been arbitrary and capricious. G.L.c. 30A, §14.

Section 14(7)(c) permits a court to overturn a Civil Service Commission decision based on an error of law.

City of Beverly v. Massachusetts Civil Service Commission · filed 2009-07-24(7)(c)

Pursuant to G.L.c. 30A, §14(7)(c), the court may overturn a Commission’s decision if it is “based upon an error of law.” ... In this case, the Commission erred as a matter of law in applying the reasonable justification standard.

Section 14(7) permits a court to set aside an agency decision that lacks substantial evidence, is arbitrary or capricious, abuses discretion, or is contrary to law.

Doe v. Sex Offender Registry Board · filed 2008-04-29(7)(e), (g)

The decision may only be set aside if the court determines that the decision is unsupported by substantial evidence or is arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not in accordance with law.

Section 14(7) provides standards for judicial review of agency decisions, including whether a decision is arbitrary or capricious and has adequate evidentiary support.

Moss's Case · filed 2008-06-30(7)

We review the board’s decision under G. L. c. 152, § 12 (2), in accordance with the standards expressed in G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7) (a)-(d), (f), and (g), to determine whether the board properly affirmed the judge’s findings. ... Under this standard, we conclude that the board’s decision was not arbitrary or capricious as there was sufficient evidence to support the administrative judge’s decision that § 28 did not apply.

Section 14 permits a court to reverse, remand, or modify an agency decision when the decision prejudices a party’s substantial rights, including when it is arbitrary and capricious or unsupported by substantial evidence.

Treat v. Commonwealth · filed 2008-11-26(7)

Pursuant to G.L.c. 30A, §14, this court may reverse, remand, or modify an agency decision if the “substantial rights of any party may have been prejudiced” because the agency decision is based on an error of law or on unlawful procedure, is arbitrary and capricious or unwarranted by facts found by the agency, or is unsupported by substantial evidence. ... In applying the above-referenced standard of review, this court finds that the agency did not act in an arbitrary or capacious manner, and finds that substantial evidence exists to support the agency’s findings.

Section 14(7) directs courts to uphold an agency decision unless it rests on legal error, lacks substantial evidence, is arbitrary or capricious, abuses discretion, or otherwise violates law.

Attorney General v. Department of Public Utilities · filed 2009-02-11(7)

We shall uphold an agency’s decision unless it is based on an error of law, unsupported by substantial evidence, unwarranted by facts found on the record as submitted, arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7).

Section 14(7)(g) permits a court to set aside an agency decision that is arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to law.

City of Boston v. Commonwealth Employment Relations Board · filed 2009-03-16(7)(g)

We will set the commission’s decision aside only if it is “[arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7) (g).

Section 14(7) provides for deferential review of an agency decision and permits reversal for legal error or a lack of substantial evidence.

Foresta v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board · filed 2009-04-24(7)

We review CRAB’s decision under a deferential standard and will reverse only if its decision was based on an erroneous interpretation of law or is unsupported by substantial evidence.

Section 14(7)(c) permits a challenge to an administrative decision for error of law, with legal questions reviewed de novo.

Electronic Data Systems Corp. v. Attorney General · filed 2009-06-11(7)(c)

Pursuant to G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7) (c), EDS challenges DALA’s decision affirming the Attorney General’s citation, and the citation itself, as being based on an error of law. We review questions of law in administrative decisions de novo.

Section 14(7) limits a court’s ability to overturn an agency decision supported by substantial evidence and free of arbitrary action or legal error.

France v. Sex Offender Registry Board · filed 2009-06-15(7)

The court, however, cannot displace the hearing examiner’s decision when it is based on substantial evidence, and the hearing examiner neither acted arbitrarily and capriciously, nor committed errors of law.

Section 14(7) permits a court to set aside an agency decision only if a defect may have prejudiced a party’s substantial rights.

Jackson Street Discount, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission · filed 2009-07-24(7)

A court reviewing an administrative decision may set it aside only if the court finds that the substantial rights of a party may have been prejudiced because the decision is defective under G.L.c. 30A, §14(7).

Section 14(7) permits a reviewing court to set aside an agency decision for an error of law, arbitrariness, or abuse of discretion.

Cohmad Securities Corp. v. Galvin · filed 2009-08-10(7)

“[U]nder the well-established standards mandated by G.L.c. 30A, §14(7): the reviewing court may set aside or modify the decision because, among other reasons, it exceeds the authority of the agency, is based on an error of law, or is arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”

Section 14 permits review of agency action for legal error, arbitrary and capricious action, or lack of substantial evidence.

Hercules Chemical Co. v. Department of Environmental Protection · filed 2010-04-23

We agree with the department that the distinction here is immaterial as both statutes permit review of agency action to determine if that action was legally erroneous, arbitrary and capricious, or unsupported by substantial evidence.

Section 14(7) permits a court to annul an agency decision based on an error of law.

Perry v. Massachusetts Department of Motor Vehicles · filed 2010-01-21(7)

In this case, the Board’s decision to affirm Perry’s driver’s license suspension, effective April 21, 2008, is based on an error of law, and hence, the Board’s decision must be annulled. See G.L.c. 30A, §14(7).

Section 14(7) permits a court to annul an agency decision based on an error of law.

Reid v. Registry of Motor Vehicles · filed 2010-01-21(7)

Pursuant to G.L.c. 30A, §14(7), this court may affirm the decision of the agency, remand the matter for further proceedings before the agency, set aside or modify the decision, or compel any action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed, if it determines that the substantial rights of any party may have been prejudiced because the agency decision is based upon an error of law, unsupported by substantial evidence, unwarranted by facts found by the court on the record as submitted, or is arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. ... Upon review and after hearing, the Plaintiffs Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings must be allowed, and the Board’s decision must be annulled. The Board’s decision dated June 8, 2009, is based on an error of law.

Section 14(7) permits a court to set aside an agency decision as arbitrary and capricious when the agency disregards relevant evidence.

Doe v. Sex Offender Registry Board · filed 2010-05-03(7)

We reverse the board’s decision if it was ... “(g) [arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” See G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7). ... Because Doe was sixty-one at the time of the hearing, it was arbitrary and capricious for the board to classify Doe’s “risk of reoffense and degree of dangerousness,” G. L. c. 6, § 178K (1), without considering this evidence. Accordingly, the case must be remanded to the board for new classification proceedings.

Section 14(7) permits a court to set aside an agency decision that lacks substantial evidence or is arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or contrary to law.

Phaneuf v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles · filed 2009-10-14(7)

The decision may be set aside only “if the court determines that the decision is unsupported by substantial evidence or is arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not in accordance with law.” ... The Board’s decision clearly was not arbitrary or capricious, and was supported by substantial record evidence.

Section 14 limits appellate review of an agency decision to whether it lacks substantial evidence, is arbitrary and capricious, or rests on an error of law.

Arlington Contributory Retirement Board v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board · filed 2009-10-16

Appellate review under G. L. c. 30A, § 14, is limited to determining whether the agency’s decision was unsupported by substantial evidence, arbitrary and capricious, or otherwise based on an error of law.

Section 14(7) permits a court to set aside an agency decision when specified defects may have prejudiced a party’s substantial rights.

Given v. Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies & Bonds · filed 2009-11-03(7)

Pursuant to G.L.c. 30A, §14(7), a court may set aside an agency decision only if “the substantial rights of any party may have been prejudiced” because the agency decision is based on an error of law or on unlawful procedure, arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or unwarranted by the facts and unsupported by substantial evidence.

Section 14(7) permits a court to set aside an agency decision only when specified agency errors may have prejudiced a party’s substantial rights.

DeFrancesco v. Civil Service Commission · filed 2009-11-12(7)

Pursuant to G.L.c. 30A, §14(7), a court may set aside an agency decision only if “the substantial rights of any party may have been prejudiced” because the agency decision is in excess of its statutoiy authority, based on an error of law or on unlawful procedure, arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or unwarranted by the facts and unsupported by substantial evidence.

Section 14(7)(g) calls for review of whether an agency decision has adequate evidentiary support and reflects reasoned decision making.

Brommage's Case · filed 2009-11-25(7)(g)

We consider “whether the decision is factually warranted and not ‘[arbitrary or capricious,’ in the sense of having adequate evidentiary and factual support and disclosing reasoned decision making within the particular requirements governing a workers’ compensation dispute.” Scheffler’s Case, 419 Mass. 251, 258 (1994), quoting from G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7)(g). ... The administrative judge made a reasoned decision based on the evidence before him.

Section 14(7) directs courts reviewing agency decisions to consider whether they lack substantial evidence, are arbitrary or capricious, or rest on an error of law.

Ten Local Citizen Group v. New England Wind · filed 2010-07-06(7)

Under G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7), we review an agency’s decision to determine whether it was not supported by substantial evidence, was arbitrary or capricious, or was otherwise based on an error of law.

Section 14 confines judicial review of agency decisions to the administrative record and limits the grounds for overturning them.

Catucci v. Benedetti · filed 2010-08-31

Under Chapter 30A, judicial review is limited and confined to the administrative record. G.L.c. 30A, §14. Decisions of an administrative body “may only be overturned if the courts find that the decision is unsupported by substantial evidence, in excess of statutory authority, based upon an error of law, or arbitrary or capricious.”

Section 14(7) permits a court to overturn an agency decision for legal error, lack of substantial evidence, arbitrary or capricious action, and other specified grounds.

Hickey v. Waldman · filed 2011-01-18(7)

The Court may overturn the agency’s decision only if it is unconstitutional; exceeds the agency’s statutory authority; is based upon an error of law; was made upon unlawful procedure; is unsupported by substantial evidence; or is arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. §14(7).

Section 14(7) supplies the standard for reviewing an agency decision, including legal error, lack of substantial evidence, arbitrary or capricious action, and abuse of discretion.

Southern Union Co. v. Department of Public Utilities · filed 2011-02-11(7)

Because the company’s petition under G. L. c. 25, § 5, raises no constitutional questions, we review the department’s decision to determine whether it is “based on an error of law, unsupported by substantial evidence, unwarranted by facts found on the record as submitted, arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” Massachusetts Inst. of Tech. v. Department of Pub. Utils., 425 Mass. 856, 868 (1997), citing G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7).

Section 14(7) permits a court to revise or revoke an agency decision that lacks substantial evidence, rests on an error of law, or is arbitrary or capricious.

Duggan v. Board of Registration in Nursing · filed 2010-05-07(7)

Under G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7), we may revise or revoke a decision of the board that is (1) in violation of constitutional provisions; (2) in excess of the board’s authority; (3) based on an error of law; (4) unsupported by substantial evidence; or (5) arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.

Section 14(7) requires a court to review a Civil Service Commission decision under the statutory standards and overturn a decision inconsistent with governing law.

Town of Lexington v. Massachusetts Civil Service Commission · filed 2010-05-27(7)

This Court’s role is to “review the commission’s decision to determine if it violates any of the standards set forth in G.L.c. 30A, §14(7), and cases construing those standards.” Town of Plymouth v. Civil Service Commission, 426 Mass. 1, 5 (1997). The Court, therefore, is “required to overturn commission decisions that are inconsistent with governing law.” Id. (citations omitted).

Section 14(7) permits a court to revise or reverse an agency decision only if the petitioner shows a flaw under its standards of review.

Lankheim v. Board of Registration in Nursing · filed 2011-01-04(7)

The court may revise or reverse the Massachusetts board’s decision only if the petitioner shows that the decision is flawed in terms of the standards for review articulated in G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7).

Section 14(7) permits a court to modify or set aside an agency decision only when the petitioner demonstrates a listed defect, such as lack of substantial evidence or arbitrary or capricious action.

MacLean v. Board of Registration in Nursing · filed 2011-01-21(7)

The court may modify or set aside the board’s final decision only if the petitioner demonstrates that the decision was legally erroneous, procedurally defective, unsupported by substantial evidence, arbitrary or capricious, or contained one or more of three other enumerated defects not at issue here.

Section 14(7) requires a reviewing court to give due weight to an agency’s expertise and statutory discretion.

Auger v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles · filed 2011-03-08(7)

In reviewing an agency’s decision, the court must “give due weight to the experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge of the agency, as well as to the discretionary authorily conferred upon it” by statute.

Section 14(7) requires a court reviewing an agency decision to give due weight to the agency’s expertise and discretionary authority.

Johansson v. Massachusetts Department of Correction · filed 2011-03-31(7)

In reviewing the agency’s decision, the court must 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).

Section 14 limits judicial review of an agency decision to whether it lacks substantial evidence, is arbitrary and capricious, or rests on an error of law.

Hunter v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board · filed 2011-08-29

Judicial review under G. L. c. 30A, § 14, is limited to determining whether the agency’s decision was unsupported by substantial evidence, arbitrary and capricious, or otherwise based on an error of law.

Section 14(7) allows a court to overturn or modify an agency decision on narrow grounds, including lack of substantial evidence or an error of law.

Gauthier v. Director of the Office of Medicaid · filed 2011-11-10(7)

A court may overturn or modify the agency’s decision only on narrow grounds, such as if it is “[unsupported by substantial evidence” or “[b]ased upon an error of law.” G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7), as appearing in St. 1973, c. 1114, § 3.

Section 14(7) supplies the standard for reviewing workers’ compensation board decisions, except that courts do not review those decisions for substantial evidence.

Wadsworth's Case · filed 2012-03-16(7)

We review a board’s decision regarding workers’ compensation benefits under the usual standard for appeal from a final decision of an administrative agency set forth in G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7), except that we do not review whether the board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Section 14 requires courts to defer to agency expertise while reviewing agency orders for legal error, insufficient evidence, arbitrary action, or abuse of discretion.

NSTAR Electric Co. v. Department of Public Utilities · filed 2012-06-04

In reviewing an order issued by the department, “we give deference to the department’s expertise and experience in areas where the Legislature has delegated to it decision-making authority [and] shall uphold an agency’s decision unless it is based on an error of law, unsupported by substantial evidence, unwarranted by facts found on the record as submitted, arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”

Section 14(7) allows a court to reverse an agency decision that is arbitrary and capricious or unsupported by substantial evidence when a party’s substantial rights may have been prejudiced.

Ibanez v. Fair Hearing Office · filed 2012-06-12(7)

Under G.L.c. 30A, §14(7), a reviewing court may reverse, remand, or modify an agency decision if “the substantial rights of any party may have been prejudiced” because the agency decision is based on an error of law or on unlawful procedure, is arbitrary and capricious, or is unwarranted by facts found by the agency supported by substantial evidence.

Section 14(7) permits a court to reverse or modify an agency decision for an error of law or when the decision is arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to law.

DiFronzo's Case · filed 2011-04-12(7)(c), (g)

We may thus reverse or modify the board’s decision when, inter alia, it is “based upon an error of law” or is “[arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7) (c), (g).

Section 14(7) directs courts to uphold an agency decision unless it rests on an error of law, lacks substantial evidence, is arbitrary and capricious, or falls within another listed ground for reversal.

Bay State Gas Co. v. Department of Public Utilities · filed 2011-05-31(7)

We shall uphold an agency’s decision unless it is based on an error of law, unsupported by substantial evidence, unwarranted by facts found on the record as submitted, arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7).

Section 14(7) permits a court to set aside or modify an agency decision only when a listed defect may have prejudiced a party’s substantial rights.

Massachusetts Department of Correction v. Hansbury · filed 2011-11-15(7)

The court may set aside or modify an agency decision only if it determines that the substantial rights of a party may have been prejudiced because the agency decision failed to meet certain standards enumerated in §14(7), including that the decision: violated constitutional provisions; was in excess of statutory authority; based on an error of law; or was arbitrary or capricious or an abuse of discretion.

Section 14(7)(g) allows a court to set aside an agency decision that is arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to law.

Doe 29631 v. Sex Offender Registry Board · filed 2012-04-19(7)(g)

Her conclusion that the plaintiffs was a “general motion for funds to retain an expert to provide an opinion on [his] risk of reoffense, without more,” id., was neither arbitrary nor capricious, nor an abuse of discretion, nor otherwise contrary to law.

Section 14(7) permits a court to set aside an agency determination that lacks substantial evidence or is arbitrary and capricious.

Chief Justice for Administration & Management of the Trial Court v. Commonwealth Employment Relations Board · filed 2011-04-28(7)(e), (7)(g)

Its determination upon this subject lacks the support of substantial evidence within the meaning of G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7)(e), and constitutes arbitrary and capricious action within the meaning of G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7)(g).

Section 14 permits a court to set aside an agency decision based on an error of law or one that is arbitrary and capricious or unsupported by substantial evidence.

O'Brien v. Division of Medical Assistance Office of Medicaid · filed 2011-06-29

The scope of review of an agency’s decision is defined by G.L.c. 30A, § 14. ... That is an error of law and arbitrary and capricious and not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 14(7)(g) permits remand when an agency’s dangerousness finding lacks specified evidentiary support and risks arbitrariness.

Doe, Sex Offender Registry Board No. 95318 v. Sex Offender Registry Board · filed 2011-08-11(7)(g)

Finally, the hearing officer’s equation of possession of child pornography (and the victimization of its subjects) with the dangerousness contemplated by the statute (peril to persons within the range of level two notification) does not rest upon any specified evidence, expert or general, adduced in the adjudicatory hearing. Without such support it runs the risk of arbitrariness within the meaning of G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7)(g). For these several reasons, reconsideration of the administrative decision is necessary.

Section 14(7) permits review of an agency decision for legal error or action beyond the agency’s authority even when the agency deferred to a judge’s ruling.

Doe v. Sex Offender Registry Board · filed 2012-06-25(7)(b), (c)

Assuming, arguendo, that SORB properly deferred to the judge, SORB’s decision still is subject to judicial review in a c. 30A appeal. If the judge had no authority to reverse the 2005 order, then SORB’s decision that the plaintiff was required to register as a sex offender was “[bjased upon an error of law,” and the remainder of the adjudication was “[i]n excess of [SORB’s] statutory authority.” G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7)(6), (c), as appearing in St. 1973, c. 1114, § 3. This is true regardless of whether SORB affirmatively decided that the judge was correct or instead concluded that it had no power to question his ruling.

Section 14 limits review of agency decisions to whether they lack substantial evidence, are arbitrary and capricious, or rest on an error of law.

Haverhill Retirement System v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board · filed 2012-07-11

“Appellate review under G. L. c. 30A, § 14, is limited to determining whether the agency’s decision was unsupported by substantial evidence, arbitrary and capricious, or otherwise based on an error of law.”

Section 14(7) requires a reviewing court to give due weight to an agency’s experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge.

MacDonnell's Case · filed 2012-07-19(7)

“When reviewing the board’s decision we give ‘due weight to the experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge’ of the agency.”

Section 14(7) permits a court to set aside a CRAB decision only if it is legally erroneous or unsupported by substantial evidence.

Murphy v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board · filed 2012-08-31(7)

We set aside a decision by CRAB only where it is legally erroneous or unsupported by substantial evidence. G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7).

Section 14(7) permits a reviewing court to set aside an agency decision based on an error of law.

Theophilopoulos v. Board of Health · filed 2012-09-10(7)

A reviewing court may modify or set aside an administrative agency’s decision if that decision exceeded the agency’s authority, was based upon an error of law, was unsupported by substantial evidence, or was arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not in accordance with the law. G.L.c. 30A, §14(7).

A party challenging an agency decision under § 14(7)(c) and (e) bears the burden of showing legal error or lack of substantial evidence.

Maguire v. Director of the Office of Medicaid · filed 2012-10-04(7)(c), (e)

As a result, Maguire has the burden of establishing that the decision made by MassHealth is invalid, and we are obliged to uphold the decision unless it was “[bjased upon an error of law” or is “[unsupported by substantial evidence.” G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7)(c), (e).

Section 14(7) requires a court reviewing an agency decision to apply the statutory standard of review rather than hold a de novo hearing.

Downey v. Massachusetts Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies & Bonds · filed 2012-10-05(7)

While this court may well have reached a different conclusion based on similar evidence, given the standard of law as set forth above, this court is not in a position to hold a de novo hearing, but instead must apply the legal standard as set forth in M.G.L.c. 30A, §14(7).

Section 14 requires a reviewing court to give due weight to an agency’s experience, expertise, and discretionary authority.

Goodwin's Case · filed 2012-10-15

In addition, we “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, as amended by St. 1973, c. 1114, § 3.

Section 14 requires substantial deference to an agency’s factual determinations and interpretations of its own rules on judicial review.

Ellis v. Department of Industrial Accidents · filed 2012-10-18

Further, appeals under the State Administrative Procedure Act, G. L. c. 30A, §§ 7 and 14, require that substantial deference be granted to the agency’s factual determinations and its interpretations of its own rules.

Section 14(7) requires a reviewing court to give due weight to an agency’s expertise and discretionary authority.

Den Herder v. Director of the Division of Unemployment Assistance · filed 2012-10-25(7)

We “ ‘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).” Ibid.

Section 14(7) requires a petitioner to demonstrate a defect such as lack of substantial evidence, arbitrary or capricious action, or legal error before a court may set aside an agency decision.

Clark v. Board of Registration of Social Workers · filed 2013-01-02(7)

Clark has not demonstrated that the board’s decision to suspend her license for five years was not supported by substantial evidence, or that it was arbitrary or capricious or based on any error of law.

Section 14(7) requires courts reviewing agency decisions to give due weight to the agency’s experience, technical competence, specialized knowledge, and discretion.

Zoning Board of Appeals v. Housing Appeals Committee · filed 2013-01-08(7)

In this analysis, we 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), and we “apply all rational presumptions in favor of the validity of the administrative action.”

Section 14(7) requires a reviewing court to give due weight to an agency’s expertise and discretionary authority.

Zoning Board of Appeals v. Sugarbush Meadow, LLC · filed 2013-01-14(7)

In this analysis, we 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), and we “apply all rational presumptions in favor of the validity of the administrative action.”

Section 14(7) requires courts reviewing agency decisions to give weight to agency expertise, but an agency’s incorrect interpretation of a statute receives no deference.

Public Employee Retirement Administration Commission v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board · filed 2013-05-23(7)

On appeal of a CRAB 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.” M.G.L.c. 30A, §14(7). ... That is especially so as to CRAB’s legal conclusions, as opposed to its factual findings, because “an incorrect interpretation of a statute by an administrative agency is entitled to no deference.”

Section 14(7) permits a court to reverse, remand or modify an agency decision when specified errors may have prejudiced a party’s substantial rights.

Nolan v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board · filed 2013-06-17(7)

Under G.L.c. 30A, §14(7), this court may reverse, remand or modify the CRAB decision if the substantial rights of any party may have been prejudiced because the agency decision is based on an error of law or an unlawful procedure, arbitrary and capricious or unwarranted by facts found by the agency and unsupported by substantial evidence.

Section 14(7) supplies the standards for reviewing a final agency decision, though review of a workers’ compensation board decision excludes whether it was supported by substantial evidence.

Spaniol's Case · filed 2013-07-30(7)

We review the board’s decision in accordance with the standards set forth in G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7), governing appeals from final administrative agency decisions, but we do not consider whether the board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Section 14(7) limits when a court may set aside an agency decision to grounds including legal error, abuse of discretion, and arbitrary or capricious action.

Bolduc's Case · filed 2013-12-04(7)

The board’s decision may be set aside only if it is arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or erroneous as a matter of law.

Section 14(7) sets the standards under which a petitioner must demonstrate a flaw in an agency decision to obtain judicial relief.

Lawless v. Board of Registration in Pharmacy · filed 2013-10-07(7)

Pursuant to G. L. c. 112, § 64, on petition, the court may revise or reverse the board’s final decision where the petitioner demonstrates that the board’s decision is flawed in accordance with the standards for review enumerated in G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7). Lawless has failed to satisfy that burden.

Section 14(7)(c) permits a court to reverse an agency decision that is not in accordance with the law, despite deference to the agency’s interpretation.

Upton's Case · filed 2013-10-18(7)(c)

The policy of judicial deference is not a practice of judicial abdication, see Finkelstein v. Board of Registration in Optometry, 370 Mass. 476, 478 (1976), and we may reverse a decision of the board if it is not in accordance with the law. G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7)(c).

Section 14(7) permits a court to set aside a sex offender classification as arbitrary and capricious when the hearing examiner fails to consider substantial evidence about the effect of gender on recidivism.

Doe v. Sex Offender Registry Board · filed 2013-12-11(7)

We conclude that it was arbitrary and capricious for the hearing examiner to classify Doe’s risk of re-offense and degree of dangerousness without considering the substantial evidence presented at the hearing concerning the effect of gender on recidivism, and that, in the circumstances, the hearing examiner abused his discretion by denying the motion for funds for an expert witness.

Section 14 permits a court to reverse, remand, or modify an agency decision when specified errors may have prejudiced a party’s substantial rights.

McLaughlin v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board · filed 2014-01-14

The Plaintiffs Motion for Judgment on the Pleading is governed by G.L.c. 30A, §14. Pursuant to this statute, the reviewing court may reverse, remand, or modify an agency decision if “substantial rights of any party may have been prejudiced” because the decision is based on an error of law or unlawful procedure, is arbitrary or capricious or unwarranted by the facts found by the agency, or is unsupported by substantial evidence.

Section 14(7) permits reversal of an agency decision that abuses its discretion or arbitrarily dismisses relevant scientific evidence.

Doe v. Sex Offender Registry Board · filed 2014-02-24(7)(g)

We conclude that in these circumstances, the hearing examiner’s decision to deny Doe expert assistance was an abuse of discretion and that her own unguided interpretation, application, and ultimate dismissal of the complex scientific and statistical studies on the effect of age on recidivism rates was arbitrary and capricious.

Section 14(7) permits a court to overturn an agency decision that is unsupported by substantial evidence or is arbitrary and capricious.

Shea v. Benedetti · filed 2014-05-27(7)

The court may overturn the Board’s decision only if it finds that the decision is based upon an error of law, unsupported by substantial evidence, oris arbitrary and capricious. G.L.c. 30A, §14(7); ... The Board’s decision to deny Shea’s petition was unsupported by substantial evidence.

Section 14(7) permits a court to reverse an agency decision based on an error of law.

Stoneham Retirement Board v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board · filed 2015-05-15(7)

Pursuant to G.L.c. 30A, §14(7), this Court may reverse, remand, or modify an agency decision only if the decision is “based on an error of law, unsupported by substantial evidence, unwarranted by facts found on the record as submitted, arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” ... CRAB’s contrary interpretation is erroneous, and therefore its decision must be reversed.

Section 14(7) allows a court to overturn or modify an agency decision only on narrow grounds, including lack of substantial evidence or an error of law.

Ramzi, Inc. v. Department of Public Health · filed 2014-05-28(7)

Our view of the order allowing judgment on the pleadings is governed by G. L. c. 30A, § 14. We “may overturn or modify the agency’s decision only on narrow grounds, such as if it is ‘[unsupported by substantial evidence’ or ‘[bjased upon an error of law.’ ” Gauthier v. Director of the Office of Medicaid, 80 Mass. App. Ct. Ill, 783 (2011), quoting from G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7), as appearing in St. 1973, c. 1114, § 3.

Section 14(7) requires courts to review agency decisions for substantial evidence, arbitrariness or capriciousness, and legal error.

Stone-Ashe v. Department of Environmental Protection · filed 2014-07-16(7)

"Under G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7), we review an agency's decision to determine whether it was not supported by substantial evidence, was arbitrary or capricious, or was otherwise based on an error of law."

Section 14(7) permits a court to set aside an agency decision that lacks substantial evidence and calls for deference to the agency’s expertise.

Massachusetts Electric Co. v. Department of Public Utilities · filed 2014-09-04(7)

We shall uphold [the department’s] decision ... unless it is based on an error of law, unsupported by substantial evidence, unwarranted by facts found on the record as submitted, arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7).

Section 14(7) provides deferential review of agency decisions, allowing reversal for an erroneous interpretation of law or a lack of substantial evidence.

Hull Retirement Board v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board · filed 2014-09-16(7)

"We review CRAB's decision under a deferential standard and will reverse only if its decision was based on an erroneous interpretation of law or is unsupported by substantial evidence." Foresta v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 453 Mass. 669, 676 (2009). See G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7).

Section 14(7) requires courts reviewing agency decisions to assess whether substantial evidence supports the decision.

Subcontracting Concepts, Inc. v. Commissioner of the Division of Unemployment Assistance · filed 2014-11-12(7)

We review the decision of the board according to the standards set forth in G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7). ... The validity of an agency decision depends on whether it is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 14 requires a court to uphold an agency decision unless it lacks substantial evidence, is arbitrary or capricious, abuses discretion, or is otherwise contrary to law.

Burke v. Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies & Bonds · filed 2014-11-28

■ Pursuant to G.L.c. 30A, § 14, the court must uphold the Board’s Decision unless the Decision is unsupported by substantial evidence, arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.

Section 14 requires a court to uphold an agency decision unless it lacks substantial evidence, is arbitrary or capricious, abuses discretion, or is otherwise contrary to law.

Callahan v. Board of Appeals on Motor Vehicle Liability & Bonds · filed 2014-12-02

Pursuant to G.L.c. 30A, §14, the Court must uphold the Board’s decision unless the decision is unsupported by substantial evidence, arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.

Section 14(7) requires a reviewing court to defer to agency expertise and permits it to set aside a decision that lacks substantial evidence or is arbitrary or capricious.

Doe, Sex Offender Registry Board No. 291554 v. Sex Offender Registry Board · filed 2015-03-27(7)

Based on the evidence presented, the risk factors involved, and the deference we must afford to the board, the hearing examiner's decision was supported by substantial evidence, was not arbitrary or capricious, and was in accordance with the law.

An agency does not act arbitrarily or capriciously by departing from an earlier decision based on an erroneous interpretation of law.

Hussey v. Registry of Motor Vehicles · filed 2015-07-01(7)(g)

Finally, there is no merit to the suggestion that, having concluded that an earlier decision to restore a commercial driver’s license ... was based on an erroneous interpretation of law, the Board was required to persist in its error for perpetuity under pain of being found to act arbitrarily or capriciously.

Section 14(7)(g) permits a court to overturn agency action that is arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise unlawful.

Navy Yard Four Associates, LLC v. Department of Environmental Protection · filed 2015-09-04(7)(g)

We conclude that DEP's application of its regulations and denial of NYF's proposed license amendment was not arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7)(g).

Section 14 permits a court to set aside an agency decision only for legal error, a procedural defect, lack of substantial evidence, or arbitrary and capricious action.

Cashcall, Inc. v. Massachusetts Division of Banks · filed 2015-08-31

Under G.L.c. 30A, the Court may only set aside an agency decision if it is legally erroneous, procedurally defective, unsupported by substantial evidence or is arbitrary and capricious. G.L.c. 30A, §14; Brackett v. Civil Service Comm’n, 447 Mass. 233, 241-42 (2006).

Section 14(7) permits a court to set aside or modify an agency decision when specified defects may have prejudiced the appealing party’s substantial rights.

Desmond v. Town of West Bridgewater · filed 2016-04-22(7)

Under G.L.c. 30A, §14(7), this Court has limited power to set aside or modify the Decision. It may do so if his substantial rights may have been prejudiced because the agency decision is based on an error of law or on unlawful procedure, is arbitrary and capricious or unwarranted by facts found by the agency, or is unsupported by substantial evidence.

Section 14(7) requires a court to uphold an agency decision unless it lacks substantial evidence, is arbitrary or capricious, abuses discretion, or is otherwise contrary to law.

Daley v. Sudders · filed 2015-12-24(7)

Under G.L.c. 30A, §14(7), this court must uphold MassHealth’s decision unless it is unsupported by substantial evidence, is arbitrary or capricious, constitutes an abuse of discretion, or is otherwise not in accordance with the law.

Section 14(7) requires a reviewing court to consider whether an agency decision is arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or otherwise contrary to law, and whether a party's substantial rights were prejudiced.

Eisai, Inc. v. Housing Appeals Committee · filed 2016-06-20(7)

The reviewing judge considers whether the HAC's decision was arbitrary, capricious, lacking substantial evidence, or otherwise contrary to the law, and whether the substantial rights of any party have been prejudiced. See Sunderland, supra at 172, citing G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7).

Section 14(7) calls for affirming an MCAD decision unless its findings and conclusions lack substantial evidence or rest on an error of law.

Massasoit Industrial Corp. v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination · filed 2017-03-23(7)

A decision of the MCAD should be affirmed unless the hearing officer's findings and conclusions are unsupported by substantial evidence or are based on an error of law. Ramsdell v. Western Mass. Bus Lines, Inc., 415 Mass. 673, 676 (1993). See G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7); G. L. c. 151B, § 6.