Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires factual findings to be upheld when the record viewed as a whole would permit a reasonable person to make the finding.

Johnson v. Employment Department · filed 2003-08-13(8)(c)

Claimant’s mental state is a fact that we review for substantial evidence. ... EAB’s finding that he lacked good faith, therefore, survives if it is supported by substantial evidence, that is, if “the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” ORS 183.482(8)(c).

Section 183.482(8) requires a court to uphold an agency order unless it rests on an erroneous legal conclusion or factual findings unsupported by substantial evidence.

Dinsmore v. Driver & Motor Vehicle Services Branch · filed 2001-08-01(8)

We will not disturb an agency’s order unless it is based on an erroneous legal conclusion or its factual findings are not supported by substantial evidence. ORS 183.482(8). Although hearsay evidence is not categorically incapable of constituting substantial evidence in a contested administrative hearing, it may fail to amount to substantial evidence, depending on the particular facts of a case.

Section 183.482(8)(c) treats a finding as supported by substantial evidence when the record as a whole would permit a reasonable person to make it, requiring reviewable agency findings to be reasoned and explicit.

Christman v. SAIF Corp. · filed 2002-05-01(8)(c)

ORS 183.482(8)(c) provides that “[substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” ... In order for us to review for substantial evidence, “we must be able to know what the Board found as facts and why it believes that its findings led to the conclusions that it reached. That requires a reasoned opinion based on explicit findings of fact.”

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires substantial-evidence review of agency factual findings based on the whole record and requires an agency to explain its factual findings and reasoning sufficiently for judicial review.

Kenimer v. SAIF Corp. · filed 2002-07-31(8)(c)

ORS 183.482(8)(c) provides that “[substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” In order for us to review for substantial evidence, “we must be able to know what the [b]oard found as facts and why it believes that its findings led to the conclusions that it reached. That requires a reasoned opinion based on explicit findings of fact.”

Section 183.482(8)(c) treats a factual finding as supported by substantial evidence when the record as a whole would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.

Brown v. Motor Vehicles Division · filed 1998-11-04(8)(c)

“Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” ORS 183.482(8)(c); Winroth v. DMV, 140 Or App 622, 626, 915 P2d 991 (1996). ... Accordingly, the ALJ’s finding that Boe had subjective probable cause was supported by substantial evidence, and the circuit court erred in rejecting that finding.

The statute requires substantial-evidence review of agency factual findings and bars the court from substituting its judgment on facts or agency discretion.

Oregon Occupational Safety & Health Division v. Jeld-Wen, Inc. · filed 1999-10-27(8)(c), (7)

“Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” ORS 183.482(8)(c). This court may not “substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to any issue of fact or agency discretion.” ORS 183.482(7).

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires an agency finding to be supported by substantial evidence; an arrest alone is not substantial evidence that a parolee committed a crime.

Mageske v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision · filed 2001-03-21(8)(c)

Petitioner argues on review that the Board’s finding that he failed to obey all laws is not supported by substantial evidence. We agree. ... In the absence of substantial evidence, the Board erred in finding that petitioner violated the parole condition requiring him to obey all laws.

Section 183.482(8) requires a reviewing court to determine whether substantial evidence supports an agency’s findings, and the court upheld the findings under that standard.

Marcum v. City of Hermiston · filed 1997-07-23(8)

Our task, then, is to determine whether substantial evidence supports the Board’s findings that the worsened condition was not caused by her original knee injury. ORS 183.482(8). We conclude that it does support those findings.

Section 183.482(8)(c) treats a finding as supported by substantial evidence when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.

Faessler v. Turney · filed 1994-12-08(8)(c)

Substantial evidence supports a finding “when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” ORS 183.482(8)(c).

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires an agency to explain the reasoning connecting its findings to its conclusion well enough for meaningful judicial review of whether the order is supported by substantial evidence.

Tilden v. Board of Chiropractic Examiners · filed 1995-06-28(8)(c)

Without an adequate explanation by the Board as to its reasoning, we conclude that a meaningful review under ORS 183.482(8) is impossible.

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires affirmance of an agency finding supported by substantial evidence, and subsection (7) bars substituting the court’s judgment for the agency’s on factual issues.

Lane County Public Works Ass'n Local 626 v. Lane County · filed 1993-02-03(8)(c), (7)

ERB’s finding that the county did not reprimand Bushek because of his union activity is supported by substantial evidence. ORS 183.482(8)(c). The fact that the evidence could support the opposite finding does not mean that ERB was compelled to make that finding. We may not substitute our judgment for ERB’s on a factual issue. ORS 183.482(7).

Section 183.482(8)(d) requires affirmance of a final administrative order when it is supported by substantial evidence in the whole record.

Wilton v. Employment Division · filed 1976-08-23(8)(d)

On a petition for review we must affirm the final administrative order if it is based upon "substantial evidence in the whole record.” ORS 183.482(8)(d); ... Substantial evidence can be any "reasonable evidence.”

Section 183.482(8)(d) requires reversal of an agency order when its findings and conclusions are not based exclusively on evidence in the record, stipulated facts, or facts officially noticed for the record.

Application of Portland General Elec. Co. · filed 1977-03-03(8)(d)

The agency's order must be based on findings and conclusions, ORS 183.470, which must rest exclusively on evidence that has been offered and made part of the record, or stipulated or officially noticed for the record, ORS 183.450, otherwise it must be reversed. ORS 183.482(8)(d).

Section 183.482(8) does not permit modification of an administrative sanction that falls within statutory limits.

Todd v. Real Estate Division · filed 1976-08-16(8)

The one-year suspension may be severe but under ORS 183.482 we have held that we do not modify administrative sanctions if they are within statutory limits.

Section 183.482(1) authorizes direct judicial review of administrative action only when the proceeding below was a contested case hearing.

Wesner v. Oregon State System of Higher Education · filed 1976-06-21(1)

As we have often stated, direct judicial review of administrative action by this court is authorized only when the proceeding below was a "contested case hearing.”

Subsections (8)(a) and (d) require affirmance of an agency order when it is supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence in the whole record and is not unlawful in substance or procedure.

Aschenbrenner v. Employment Division · filed 1977-05-09(8)(a) and (d)

In a factual determination of good cause for voluntarily leaving work, the order of the EAB is to be affirmed if based on reliable, probative and substantial evidence in the whole record, and not unlawful in substance and procedure.

Section 183.482(8)(a) and (d) requires affirmance of an agency order supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence in the whole record and not unlawful in substance or procedure.

Vail v. EMP. DIV. OF DEPT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES · filed 1977-08-08(8)(a) and (d)

In a determination such as good cause for voluntarily leaving work, or suitability of proffered employment, the order of EAB is to be affirmed if based on reliable, probative and substantial evidence in the whole record, and not unlawful in substance or procedure. ORS 183.482(8)(a) and (d); ... This court cannot disturb a reasonable conclusion drawn from the facts by the EAB, even if the court, were it sitting as a trier of fact, might reach a different conclusion.

Section 183.482(8) limits judicial review of an agency order to specified grounds, including prejudicial procedural error, unlawfulness, unconstitutionality, invalidity of the enforced rule, or lack of substantial evidence.

Mary's Fine Food, Inc. v. Oregon Liquor Control Commission · filed 1977-08-08(8)

If it is found that there is no prejudicial procedural defect in the proceedings, that the order and the rules of the commission are within its statutory authority and constitutional, and that the order is supported by substantial evidence, there is nothing more for this court to review.

Subsection (8) supports affirming an agency order when there is no showing that the agency failed to apply the governing criteria, abused its discretion, or acted contrary to law.

Jones v. Employment Division · filed 1977-07-18(8)

In the absence of a showing that the administrator failed to apply the statutory or agency criteria, or abused his discretion in reaching that decision, or that the order is otherwise contrary to law, ORS 183.482(8), the order will be affirmed.

On judicial review, the court may not substitute its judgment for the agency board’s, and it may reverse the board’s order only if it is not supported by substantial evidence in the whole record.

Hall v. Employment Division · filed 1977-10-04(7) (8)(d)

On review, this Court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Board, ORS 183.482(7), and may not reverse the Board’s order unless it is "not supported by substantial evidence in the whole record.” ORS 183.482(8)(d).

Section 183.482(8)(d) requires appellate review for substantial evidence, without applying the fact-finder's standards of proof or reweighing the evidence.

Burton v. Oregon State Board of Dental Examiners · filed 1977-12-05(8)(d)

On the evidentiary question, petitioner argues that the substantial evidence for which we review under ORS 183.482(8)(d) must be clear and convincing. The argument is misconceived. The statutory substantial evidence rule requires us to review for that quantum of evidence. The various standards of proof (e.g., preponderance, clear and convincing, beyond reasonable doubt) are directions to the fact finder as to the degree of certainty which must exist in the mind of the fact finder as to any finding of fact. They are not applicable on appeal and we do not weigh the evidence to assess its degree of persuasiveness. We may only examine the record for the existence of substantial evidence.

Section 183.482(8)(c) permits a court reviewing an agency finding of fact to set it aside only when it lacks substantial evidentiary support, and evidence may include inferences.

City of Portland v. Bureau of Labor & Industries · filed 1984-10-30(8)(c)

In reviewing the Commissioner's finding of fact, the court can set the finding of fact aside only if it is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. ORS 183.482(8)(c). Evidence includes inferences. ... On judicial review under ORS 183.482(8)(c), a court can reverse the Commissioner only if the only reasonable deduction to be drawn from the evidence as a whole, including that presented by the City, is that the disparity in pay was other than "because of" Potter's female sex. To put it another way, if a reasonable person on the evidence in the record could draw the inference that the acknowledged disparity arose from compensating the female employe at a lower rate than the male employe "because she is a female," the Commissioner's decision on the facts must prevail, no matter what the court might believe from the evidence.

Section 183.482(8)(c) treats an agency factual finding as supported by substantial evidence when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.

Richardson v. Driver & Motor Vehicle Services Division · filed 2007-05-23(8)(c)

“Substantial evidence” to support a finding of fact exists when the record, viewed as a whole, “would permit a reasonable person to make a finding.” ORS 183.482(8)(c).

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires reviewing courts to assess whether an agency’s findings are supported by substantial evidence, meaning evidence that would permit a reasonable person to make the finding when viewing the record as a whole.

Dye v. Employment Department · filed 2005-12-07(8)(c)

Our role on review, in part, is to evaluate whether the board’s findings are supported by substantial evidence, which means evidence that, in viewing the record as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make a finding. ORS 183.482(8)(c); ... (To review a board order for substantial evidence, “we must be able to know what the [b]oard found as fact and why it believes that its findings led to the conclusions that it reached.”).

Section 183.482(8)(c) treats a finding as supported by substantial evidence when the record viewed as a whole permits a reasonable person to make the finding.

Allied Waste Industries, Inc. v. Crawford · filed 2005-12-28(8)(c)

“ [Substantial evidence supports a finding when the record, viewed as a whole, permits a reasonable person to make the finding.” ... Accordingly, we hold that there was substantial evidence to support the board’s finding.

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires the court to uphold an agency finding when the record viewed as a whole would permit a reasonable person to make it, considering evidence that both supports and detracts from the finding.

Bellairs v. Beaverton School District · filed 2006-05-31(8)(c)

“Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” ORS 183.482(8)(c). In deciding whether evidence is substantial, we consider all relevant evidence, whether it detracts from the finding or supports it.

Section 183.482(8)(c) permits a reviewing court to set aside or remand an agency order unsupported by substantial evidence, measured by whether the whole record would permit a reasonable person to make the finding.

Sorenson v. LaTour · filed 2007-12-26(8)(c)

Under ORS 183.482(8)(c), we are empowered to set aside or remand the board’s order if the “order is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.”

Section 183.482(8)(c) permits a court to set aside or remand an agency order only when it is not supported by substantial evidence, which exists when the record viewed as a whole would permit a reasonable person to make the finding.

Sen v. Employment Department · filed 2008-03-19(8)(c)

We are permitted to set aside or remand an agency order only if the order is not supported by substantial evidence. ORS 183.482(8)(c). Substantial evidence exists when “the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.”

Section 183.482(8)(c) defines substantial evidence as evidence that permits a reasonable person to make the finding when the record is viewed as a whole.

Liberty Northwest Insurance v. Mundell · filed 2008-04-16(8)(c)

Substantial evidence supports a finding of fact “when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” ORS 183.482(8)(c). In reviewing a finding to determine whether it is supported by substantial evidence, the reviewing entity must “evaluate evidence against the finding as well as evidence supporting it to determine whether substantial evidence exists to support that finding. If a finding is reasonable in light of countervailing as well as supporting evidence, the finding is supported by substantial evidence.” ... Accordingly, in reviewing the MRU’s order for substantial evidence, the ALJ was limited to evaluating the evidence in the record to determine whether, based on that evidence, a reasonable factfinder in the MRU’s position could have made the findings that the MRU actually made. The ALJ does not have authority to determine whether the record could support findings different from those reached by the MRU, nor does the ALJ have authority to reweigh the evidence and substitute its view of the evidence for that of the MRU.

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires an agency order to be supported by substantial evidence, meaning evidence that, viewing the record as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make the finding.

Carter v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION · filed 2008-11-12(8)(c)

The board’s order must be supported by substantial evidence. ORS 144.335(3); ORS 183.482(8)(c). “Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” ORS 183.482(8)(c).

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires appellate review of an agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence, meaning evidence that would permit a reasonable person to make the finding from the record as a whole.

Mortgage Galeria, LLC v. Employment Department · filed 2008-12-10(8)(c)

We review the ALTs findings of fact for substantial evidence. ORS 183.482(8)(c). “Substantial evidence” exists when the record as a whole “would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.”

Section 183.482(8)(c) treats a finding as supported by substantial evidence when the record viewed as a whole would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.

Einstein v. Psychiatric Security Review Board · filed 2009-02-18(8)(c)

“Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” ORS 183.482(8)(c).

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires substantial-evidence review of the Board’s factual findings, asking whether the record viewed as a whole would permit a reasonable person to make the finding.

Interstate Metal v. Gibler · filed 2009-04-29(8)(c)

We review the board’s finding for substantial evidence. “Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” ORS 183.482(8)(c).

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires a factual finding to be supported by substantial evidence when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make the finding.

Van Der Vaarte v. SAIF Corp. · filed 2009-05-13(8)(c)

“Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” ORS 183.482(8)(c).

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires a court to set aside or remand an agency order that is not supported by substantial evidence in the whole record.

Smithee v. Employment Department · filed 2009-05-13(8)(c)

We are required to set aside or remand the board’s order if we determine that “the order is not supported by substantial evidence in the whole record.” ORS 183.482(8)(c).

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires a court to set aside or remand an agency order unsupported by substantial evidence, judged by whether the whole record would let a reasonable person make the finding.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Young · filed 2008-04-16(8)(c)

“The court shall set aside or remand the order if the court finds that the order is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.”

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires substantial-evidence review of an agency’s factual determination and does not permit the court to reweigh the evidence.

Vermeulen v. Department of Human Services · filed 2009-10-28(8)(c)

Whether the ALJ correctly determined that, based on the evidence in the record as a whole, claimant established that she could not reasonably have anticipated applying for medical assistance presents a question of fact, which we review for substantial evidence. ORS 183.482(8)(c).

Subsection (8)(c) requires an agency order’s factual findings to be supported by substantial evidence, allowing a court to reject findings that lack such evidence.

Meritage at Little Creek v. Employment Department · filed 2009-12-16(8)(c)

Here, the EAB determined that the late request resulted from inadvertence or neglect. Those are factual determinations that we review for substantial evidence. ORS 183.482(8)(c).

Subsections (8)(a) and (8)(c) require review of contested-case orders for legal error and substantial evidence, with a factual finding supported when the whole record would permit a reasonable person to make it.

Sports Clubs, LLC v. Employment Department · filed 2010-06-16(8)(a) (8)(c)

Under ORS 657.684, “judicial review of decisions under ORS 657.683 shall be as provided for review of orders in contested cases in ORS chapter 183[.]” Under ORS chapter 183, we review an order in a contested case for errors of law and substantial evidence. ORS 183.482(8)(a), (c). A finding of fact is supported by substantial evidence “when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” ORS 183.482(8)(c).

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires appellate review of agency factual findings for substantial evidence, measured by whether the record as a whole would permit a reasonable person to make the finding.

Van Rijn v. Employment Department · filed 2010-08-25(8)(c)

We review the board’s findings of fact for substantial evidence. ORS 657.282; ORS 183.482(8)(c). A finding of fact is supported by substantial evidence if “the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” ORS 183.482(8)(c).

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires agency factual findings to be supported by substantial evidence, meaning the whole record must permit a reasonable person to make the finding.

VAN RIJN v. Employment Dept. · filed 2010-08-25(8)(c)

We review the board's findings of fact for substantial evidence. ORS 657.282; ORS 183.482(8)(c). A finding of fact is supported by substantial evidence if "the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding." ORS 183.482(8)(c).

Subsection (8)(c) treats a factual finding as supported by substantial evidence when the record as a whole would permit a reasonable person to make it.

Werth v. Employment Department · filed 2010-09-29(8)(c)

“Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” ORS 183.482(8)(c).

Section 183.482(8)(c) limits review of an agency's factual findings to whether substantial evidence supports them, meaning the record viewed as a whole would permit a reasonable person to make the finding.

PULLAM v. Employment Dept. · filed 2010-10-20(8)(c)

Our review of EAB's factual findings is limited to the question whether the agency's findings are supported by substantial evidence. ORS 183.482(8)(c); Cummings v. Employment Dept., 235 Or.App. 167, 169, 230 P.3d 83 (2010). Substantial evidence exists to support a factual finding "when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make the finding." ORS 183.482(8)(c).

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires review of an agency order for substantial evidence, meaning the record viewed as a whole would permit a reasonable person to make the finding.

Hill v. Employment Department · filed 2010-10-27(8)(c)

We review the board’s order to determine if it is supported by “substantial evidence.” ORS 657.282; ORS 183.482(8)(c). A finding of fact is supported by substantial evidence if “the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” ORS 183.482(8)(c).

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires the Court of Appeals to uphold an agency finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.

Hill v. Employment Dept. · filed 2010-10-27(8)(c)

We review the board's order to determine if it is supported by "substantial evidence." ORS 657.282; ORS 183.482(8)(c). A finding of fact is supported by substantial evidence if "the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding." ORS 183.482(8)(c).

Section 183.482(8)(c) provides that substantial evidence supports a finding of fact when the record as a whole would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.

Devin Oil Co., Inc. v. Morrow County · filed 2010-06-30(8)(c)

“Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” ORS 183.482(8)(c).

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires a court to set aside or remand an agency order that lacks substantial evidence, measured by whether the whole record would permit a reasonable person to make the finding.

Simpson v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision · filed 2010-10-13(8)(c)

“The court shall set aside or remand the order if the court finds that the order is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.”

Section 183.482(8)(c) defines substantial evidence as evidence in the whole record that would permit a reasonable person to make the finding of fact.

Murphy v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision · filed 2011-02-23(8)(c)

“Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.”

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires reviewing courts to test agency factual findings for substantial evidence, meaning the record viewed as a whole would permit a reasonable person to make the finding.

MacKs v. Department of Education · filed 2011-03-02(8)(c)

We review the department’s order for substantial evidence. ORS 183.482(8)(c). Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when “the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.”

Section 183.482(8)(c) treats a finding as supported by substantial evidence when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.

Griggs v. Employment Department · filed 2011-03-16(8)(c)

Substantial evidence exists to support a finding “when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” ORS 183.482(8)(c).

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires judicial review of an agency's factual findings for substantial evidence.

Dubrow v. Employment Dept. · filed 2011-04-06(8)(c)

We review the board's findings of fact for substantial evidence. ORS 183.482(8)(c).

Section 183.482(8)(c) treats a finding as supported by substantial evidence when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.

In Re Compensation of Hunter · filed 2011-12-07(8)(c)

“Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.”

Section 183.482(8)(c) asks whether, viewing the evidence as a whole, a reasonable person could find the agency’s determination supported by the evidence.

D. T. v. Department of Human Services · filed 2011-12-21(8)(c)

Although petitioner points to evidence that he understands and harbors concerns about potential side effects of the psychotropic medication, the question before us is not whether some of petitioner’s concerns are legitimate or rational; the question before this court is whether, viewing the evidence as a whole, a reasonable person could find that petitioner lacked the ability to comprehend and weigh the risks and benefits of the proposed procedure, alternative procedures, or no treatment at all. ORS 183.482(8)(c). There is evidence that petitioner simply is unable to reasonably comprehend the symptoms of his illness, thereby making it impossible for him to weigh the risks and benefits of the proposed medical procedure. For that reason, we reject petitioner’s argument regarding the agency’s determination that he is unable to consent to the proposed medications.

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires reviewing an agency order for substantial evidence, including the agency’s factual findings and legal conclusions derived from those findings.

Knotts v. Psychiatric Security Review Board · filed 2012-06-13(8)(c)

We review the board’s order for substantial evidence. ORS 183.482(8)(c). In doing so, we review both the board’s factual findings and its legal conclusions derived from those findings.

Subsection (8)(c) directs the reviewing court to assess whether substantial evidence supports the agency’s factual findings, using the entire record and a reasonable-person standard.

Blank v. US Bank · filed 2012-09-26(8)(c)

Accordingly, we review the board’s order for substantial evidence, meaning evidence that would permit a reasonable person to make the findings in question when considered in the context of the entire record.

Section 183.482(8)(c) defines substantial evidence as evidence that, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make the factual finding.

Campbell v. Employment Department · filed 2013-05-15(8)(c)

Substantial evidence supports afactualfinding“when the record, viewed as awhole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” ORS 183.482(8)(c).

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires a reviewing court to determine, on the record as a whole, whether evidence would permit a reasonable person to make the agency’s finding, without reweighing conflicting evidence.

SAIF Corp. v. Walker · filed 2013-12-26(8)(c)

The remaining question for our review, then, is whether there is substantial evidence to support the board’s determination that the 2008 foot injury was the major contributing cause of the worsening of claimant’s L4-5 disc herniation. ORS 183.482(8)(c). Specifically, we must determine whether the board’s evaluation of expert medical opinions is supported by evidence that, considering the record as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make the findings.

Section 183.482(8)(c) treats evidence as substantial when the record as a whole would permit a reasonable person to make the finding.

Barkers Five, LLC v. Land Conservation & Development Commission · filed 2014-02-20(8)(c)

“Under ORS 183.482(8)(c) substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding[.]” ... We readily conclude that LCDC properly articulated the substantial evidence standard of review.

Section 183.482(8)(c) treats an agency finding as supported by substantial evidence when the record as a whole would permit a reasonable person to make it.

Endres v. Driver & Motor Vehicle Services Division · filed 2013-02-13(8)(c)

Substantial evidence “exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” ORS 183.482(8)(c).

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires a reviewing court to determine whether a reasonable person could make the agency’s findings and prohibits substituting the court’s view of the evidence for the agency’s.

Dixon v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision · filed 2013-06-19(8)(c)

On substantial evidence review, we must determine whether a reasonable person could make the findings that the board made, ORS 183.482(8)(c), and we do not substitute our own view of the evidence for the board’s view of the evidence.

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires a court to set aside or remand an agency order unsupported by substantial evidence in the record, and substantial evidence exists when the record viewed as a whole would permit a reasonable person to make the finding.

Gearhart v. Public Utility Commission · filed 2014-10-02(8)(c)

Under ORS 183.482(8) (c), “[t]he court shall set aside or remand [an agency’s] order if the court finds that the order is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.” Substantial evidence supports an agency’s finding “when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” Id.

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires a court to set aside or remand an agency order that is not supported by substantial evidence in the record, meaning evidence that would permit a reasonable person to make the finding when the record is viewed as a whole.

Gearhart v. PUC · filed 2014-10-02(8)(c)

Under ORS 183.482(8)(c), “[t]he court shall set aside or remand [an agency’s] order if the court finds that the order is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.” Substantial evidence supports an agency’s finding “when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” Id.

Section 183.482(8)(c) asks whether the whole record would permit a reasonable person to make the agency’s factual finding.

Gordon v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision · filed 2014-10-22(8)(c)

ORS 183.482(8)(c) (“Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.”). In other words, we examine the record — that is, Stuckey’s evaluation — as a whole to determine whether it permitted a reasonable person to make the finding that the board made. ... Applying those principles here, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the board’s finding that petitioner had a present severe emotional disturbance that constituted a danger to the health or safety of the community.

Under subsection (c), substantial-evidence review includes requiring agency orders to be supported by substantial reason.

Hamilton v. Pacific Skyline, Inc. · filed 2014-10-29(c)

That substantial reason requirement inheres in our substantial evidence standard of review under ORS 183.482(c).

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires reviewing courts to determine whether the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make the challenged finding.

Bandon Pacific, Inc. v. Environmental Quality Commission · filed 2015-08-26(8)(c)

When reviewing a final order to determine whether a particular finding is supported by substantial evidence, our task is to determine whether “the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” ORS 183.482(8)(c).

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires a court to set aside or remand an agency order that is not supported by substantial evidence, meaning the record viewed as a whole would permit a reasonable person to make the finding.

Spurger v. SAIF Corp. · filed 2014-10-08(8)(c)

“The court shall set aside or remand the order if the court finds that the order is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.”

Section 183.482(8)(c) treats a finding as supported by substantial evidence when the record as a whole would let a reasonable person make it.

Edwards v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision · filed 2015-07-08(8)(c)

“Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” ORS 183.482(8)(c).

Section 183.482(8) requires an appellate court to set aside or remand an agency order that is not supported by substantial evidence, judged by whether the whole record would let a reasonable person make the finding.

Utility Reform Project v. Oregon Public Utility Commission · filed 2016-04-06(8)

Under ORS 183.482(8), we must “set aside or remand [the PUC’s] order if the court finds that the order is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.” Substantial evidence supports the PUC’s findings “when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.”

ORS 183.482(8)(c) requires judicial review under a substantial-evidence standard that implicitly includes a substantial-reason standard.

Morrison v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision · filed 2016-04-27(8)(c)

The “substantial reason” standard is implicit in the “substantial evidence” standard of review supplied by ORS 183.482(8)(c).

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires an agency order to be set aside or remanded when the whole record would not permit a reasonable person to make the finding, and substantial reason is inherent in that substantial-evidence review.

Long v. SAIF Corp. · filed 2016-05-04(8)(c)

Agency orders, including orders of the board, must be supported by substantial evidence and reason. ... Substantial evidence supports a finding when the record, viewed as a whole, permits a reasonable person to make the finding. ORS 183.482(8)(c). ... The substantial reason requirement inheres in our substantial evidence standard of review under ORS 183.482(8)(c).

Subsection (8)(c) requires substantial-evidence review of an agency factual finding, asking whether the record viewed as a whole would permit a reasonable person to make the finding.

Scott v. Sports Authority, Inc. · filed 2017-02-01(8)(c)

The remaining question is whether the board’s factual determination that there was no acceptance of the disputed conditions is supported by substantial evidence in the record, that is, “whether the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” ORS 183.482(8)(c); ... We conclude that the board’s finding that there had been no acceptance of the disputed conditions is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires substantial-evidence review of agency factual findings, viewing the record as a whole to determine whether a reasonable person could make the finding.

King v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision · filed 2017-02-15(8)(c)

On review, petitioner challenges those findings— and others—as unsupported by substantial evidence in the record. “Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding of fact.” ORS 183.482(8)(c). Although we reject the bulk of petitioner’s challenges to the board’s findings, we conclude that his challenges to the three findings identified above have merit.

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires an agency order to be supported by substantial evidence, meaning the record as a whole would permit a reasonable person to make the factual finding.

Henley v. Employment Department · filed 2017-04-12(8)(c)

A board order must be “supported by substantial evidence in the record.” ORS 183.482(8)(c). Substantial evidence exists to support the board’s factual findings when “the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” Id. Reviewing the present record in light of that standard, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the board’s findings.

Section 183.482(8) requires agency orders to provide a rational, substantial-reason basis for judicial review of their factual findings; when an order lacks substantial reason, the court cannot meaningfully review its findings for substantial evidence.

Harvey v. SAIF Corp. · filed 2017-07-06(8)

Because we conclude that the board’s order lacks substantial reason and that we therefore lack a sufficient basis to review for substantial evidence the board’s findings as to the arbiters’ opinions, we reverse and remand. ORS 183.482(8); ORS 656.298(7).

Section 183.482(8)(c) treats a finding as supported by substantial evidence when the whole record would permit a reasonable person to make it, and review does not substitute the court’s view of the evidence for the agency’s.

Wille v. Board of Parole & Post-Prision Supervision · filed 2017-09-13(8)(c)

“On substantial evidence review, we must determine whether a reasonable person could make the findings that the board made, ORS 183.482(8)(c), and we do not substitute our own view of the evidence for the board’s view of the evidence.” Dixon v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, 257 Or App 273, 278, 306 P3d 716, rev den, 354 Or 389 (2013); see ORS 183.482(8)(c) (“Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding”).

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires a reviewing court to set aside or remand an agency order that is not supported by substantial evidence, which exists when the whole record would permit a reasonable person to make the finding.

Mendacino v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision · filed 2017-09-20(8)(c)

Under ORS 183.482 (8)(c), we must “set aside or remand the order” if we conclude that it is not supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence “exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.”

Subsection (8)(c) requires a court to set aside or remand an agency order that is not supported by substantial evidence in the record, applying a whole-record reasonable-person standard.

Guild v. SAIF Corp. (In re Guild) · filed 2018-05-16(8)(c)

In sum, the board's order was not supported by substantial evidence. Rather than view the record as a whole, the board unreasonably focused on an isolated statement in a single exhibit. And in focusing on that statement without acknowledging the other evidence in the record, including Fry's February 2015 opinion that claimant is completely physically disabled, the board erred by failing to adequately explain why it rejected that other opinion. As a result, the board's order also was not supported by substantial reason. Accordingly, we reverse and remand the order to the board. ORS 183.482(8)(c) (the court "shall set aside or remand the order if the court finds that the order is not supported by substantial evidence in the record").

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires an agency finding to be supported by evidence that, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make the finding.

Nevins v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision · filed 2018-07-18(8)(c)

That is, "the record, viewed as a whole, would [not] permit a reasonable person to make that finding." ORS 183.482(8)(c) (defining "substantial evidence" standard).

ORS 183.482(8)(c) provides that substantial evidence supports a factual finding when the record as a whole would permit a reasonable person to make it.

Washington v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision · filed 2018-10-17(8)(c)

"Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding." ORS 183.482 (8)(c).

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires a court to set aside or remand an agency order that is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Wright v. SAIF Corp. (In re Wright) · filed 2018-12-05(8)(c)

We conclude that the board did not err and that the board's order is supported by substantial evidence. ORS 183.482(8)(c).

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires the court reviewing an agency's factual findings for substantial evidence to consider the whole record and ask whether it would permit a reasonable person to make those findings.

Aikens v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision · filed 2019-06-12(8)(c)

On substantial evidence review, our task is to determine whether the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make the factual findings that the board made. ORS 183.482(8)(c).

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires substantial-evidence review of agency factual findings, asking whether the record viewed as a whole would permit a reasonable person to make the finding.

Jensen v. DMV · filed 2020-12-16(8)(c)

We review final orders for errors of law to determine whether “substantial evidence” supports the order. ORS 183.482(8)(c). “Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.”

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires reviewing courts to uphold an agency finding supported by substantial evidence, meaning evidence from which a reasonable person viewing the record as a whole could make the finding.

McCoin v. PSRB · filed 2021-04-07(8)(c)

We review the board’s findings to determine whether they are supported by substantial evidence, i.e., for whether a reasonable person, viewing the record as a whole, could make the findings. ORS 183.482(8)(c).

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires substantial evidence for an agency fact finding when the record as a whole would permit a reasonable person to make it, and judicial review also asks whether the agency gave a rational explanation connecting factual findings to legal conclusions.

Bruntz-Ferguson v. Liberty Mutual Ins. · filed 2021-04-14(8)(c)

We review the board’s order upholding the denial of claimant’s claim for errors of law and substantial evidence. ORS 656.298(7); ORS 183.482(7), (8). ORS 183.482(8)(c) provides that substantial evidence “exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” In reviewing for substantial evidence, we also review the board’s order for substantial reason, which requires us to determine whether the board provided a rational explanation of how its factual findings lead to the legal conclusions on which the order is based.

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires a court to set aside or remand an agency order that is not supported by substantial evidence, reviewing the whole record for evidence that detracts from as well as supports the order.

Stewart v. Board of Parole · filed 2021-06-03(8)(c)

“Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” ORS 183.482(8)(c). ... That finding is not supported by substantial evidence when, as required by ORS 183.482(8)(c), the whole record is taken into account. “ ‘Whole record’ review requires us to consider whatever evidence the record may contain that would detract from, as well as support, the agency’s order.” ... Accordingly, we conclude that the board’s scoring of Items 8 and 9 is not supported by substantial evidence and, for that reason, reverse and remand to the board. ORS 183.482(8)(c) (requiring court to “set aside or remand the order” upon a determination that it is not supported by substantial evidence).

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires the court to uphold an agency factual finding when the whole record would permit a reasonable person to make it.

Deyo-Bundy v. SAIF · filed 2021-07-14(8)(c)

“Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reason- able person to make that finding.” ORS 183.482(8)(c). Here, Dr. Sudakin’s opinion supports the board’s finding and, having considered that opinion in the context of the record as a whole, we cannot say that it was unreasonable for the board to rely on it.

Section 183.482(8)(c) defines substantial evidence as evidence that, considering the record as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make the finding of fact.

Miles v. Bi-Mart Corp. · filed 2021-12-22(8)(c)

We review the board’s order denying compensation of claimant’s injury for substantial evidence and errors of law under ORS 656.298(7); ORS 183.482. Under ORS 183.482(8)(c), substantial evidence “exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.”

Subsection (8)(c) requires appellate review of agency factual findings for substantial evidence, meaning the record viewed as a whole must permit a reasonable person to make the finding.

Dugas v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. · filed 2022-03-02(8)(c)

The board’s determination that claimant’s rotator cuff tear is not a consequential condition involves findings of fact, which we review for substantial evidence. ORS 183.482(8)(c). “Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make the finding.” Garcia v. Boise Cascade Corp., 309 Or 292, 294 n 1, 787 P2d 884 (1990) (quoting ORS 183.482(8)(c)). “As part of our review for substantial evidence, we also review the board’s order for substantial reason—that is, we determine whether the board provided a rational explanation of how its factual findings lead to the legal conclusions on which the order is based.” Arms v. SAIF, 268 Or App 761, 767, 343 P3d 659 (2015).

Subsection (8)(c) treats agency findings as supported by substantial evidence when the record viewed as a whole would permit a reasonable person to make them.

Golden Rule Farms v. Water Resources Dept. · filed 2022-07-27(8)(c)

As for the merits of petitioner’s challenges to the modified findings, we conclude that those findings are supported by substantial evidence—that is, that “the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make” those findings, ORS 183.482(8)(c).

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires review of agency factual findings for substantial evidence and substantial reason, including a reasonable evidentiary basis and a rational explanation connecting the facts to the legal conclusions.

Torres v. SAIF · filed 2022-08-24(8)(c)

We review the board’s findings of fact for substantial evidence and reason. ORS 183.482(8)(c). “Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” Id. When reviewing for substantial reason, “we determine whether the board provided a rational explanation of how its factual findings lead to the legal conclusions on which the order is based.”

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires substantial-evidence and substantial-reason review of an agency order, including a whole-record examination for internal consistency and conclusions that reasonably follow from the facts found.

Mang v. Employment Dept. · filed 2022-09-08(8)(c)

Nevertheless, as the substantial evidence test has developed since Armstrong, it requires a deeper analysis of the record, to determine whether the agency’s opinion is internally consistent. When reviewing for substantial evidence and substantial reason, our role is “to determine whether [the] record, viewed as a whole, is capable of being read as the agency read it.”

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires a reviewing court to set aside or remand an agency final order that is not supported by substantial evidence.

WaterWatch of Oregon v. Water Resources Dept. · filed 2023-03-01(8)(c)

“Under ORS 183.482(8)(c), we are required to set aside or remand the department’s final orders if they are not supported by substantial evidence.”

Section 183.482(8)(c) provides that substantial evidence supports a factual finding when the record viewed as a whole would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.

Campbell Soup Company v. Langan · filed 2023-04-19(8)(c)

ORS 183.482(8)(c) (“Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.”). ... Keeping in mind that we do not reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the board, substantial evidence supports the board’s finding that claimant was credible regarding the work injury.

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires an agency order to be set aside or remanded when the record, viewed as a whole, would not permit a reasonable person to make the agency’s factual finding.

Cochell v. Dept. of Human Services · filed 2023-07-19(8)(c)

We will set aside or remand an agency’s order if “the order is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” ORS 183.482(8)(c).

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires a court reviewing an agency order to uphold factual findings supported by substantial evidence, meaning the record as a whole would permit a reasonable person to make the finding.

Higgins v. Employment Dept. · filed 2023-07-26(8)(c)

We review the board’s order for substantial evidence, which exists when “the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” ORS 183.482(8)(c). ... Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the evidence in the record, viewed as a whole, would allow a reasonable person to conclude that claimant was provided with adequate notice of the continued hearing. That is, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the board’s findings.

Section 183.482(8)(c) treats a finding as supported by substantial evidence when the record as a whole would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.

Vilca-Inga v. SAIF · filed 2023-08-09(8)(c)

In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the record allows a reasonable person to find that the record lacks evidence of a causal link between claimant’s abdominal condition and his remote work environment. Therefore, the board’s findings are supported by substantial evidence. See ORS 183.482(8)(c) (“Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.”).

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires the court to set aside or remand an agency order that lacks substantial evidence, measured by whether the record as a whole would permit a reasonable person to make the finding.

Burnard v. PSRB · filed 2023-08-23(8)(c)

Under ORS 183.482(8)(c), we must set aside or remand an order if we find that “the order is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.”

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires an order to be set aside or remanded when it is not supported by substantial evidence, meaning the record as a whole would not permit a reasonable person to make the finding.

Aikens v. Board of Parole · filed 2023-09-27(8)(c)

When reviewing the board’s order, we “may affirm, reverse or remand the order on the same basis as provided in ORS 183.482(8).” ORS 144.335(3). Under ORS 183.482(8)(c), we must set aside or remand the order if we find “that the order is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.”

Section 183.482(8)(c) asks whether the whole record would permit a reasonable person to make the agency’s factual finding.

Barrera v. Employment Dept. · filed 2024-07-10(8)(c)

“Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” ... “We conclude that substantial evidence supports the EAB’s findings.”

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires an appellate court to set aside or remand an agency order that is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Steele v. Employment Dept. · filed 2024-11-14(8)(c)

Under our standard of review, we will set aside or remand the board’s order if the order is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. See ORS 183.482(8)(c) (describing our standard of review).

ORS 183.482(8)(c) treats an agency factual finding as supported by substantial evidence when the whole record would permit a reasonable person to make the finding, considering both supporting and countervailing evidence.

Mambu v. Dept. of Human Services · filed 2024-12-18(8)(c)

“Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” ORS 183.482(8)(c). ... Because the record would “permit a reasonable person” to find that petitioner failed to provide the resident’s medication when she requested it, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding. See ORS 183.482(8)(c) (defining “substantial evidence”); Liberty Northwest Ins., 219 Or App at 362 (“If a finding is reasonable in light of countervailing as well as supporting evidence, the finding is supported by substantial evidence.”).

Section 183.482(8)(c) treats a factual finding as supported by substantial evidence when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.

Lavelle-Hayden v. Employment Dept. · filed 2024-12-18(8)(c)

“Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a rea- sonable person to make that finding.” ORS 183.482(8)(c). In this case, when the record is viewed as a whole through the free-exercise lens prescribed by the United States Supreme Court, substantial evidence does not support the EAB’s finding that claimant’s views on the vaccine more likely than not were solely personal and secular, and not religious.

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires an appellate court to set aside or remand an agency order unsupported by substantial evidence, measured by whether the record as a whole would permit a reasonable person to make the finding.

Garrett-Sims v. Dept. of Human Services · filed 2025-03-19(8)(c)

We “shall set aside or remand the order if [we] find[ ] that the order is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” ORS 183.482(8)(c). ... Accordingly, we conclude that the ALJ’s finding that DHS proved by clear and convincing evidence that petitioner intentionally misrepresented her household composition is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 183.482(8)(c) treats a factual finding as supported by substantial evidence when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.

Walters v. PSRB · filed 2025-06-04(8)(c)

“Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” ORS 183.482(8)(c).

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires appellate review of whether substantial evidence supports an agency’s findings.

Balduyck v. Employment Division · filed 1985-02-27(8)(c)

We review to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support the agency’s findings, ORS 183.482(8) (c), and whether there is a rational connection between the findings and conclusions.

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires review of an agency finding-of-fact challenge for substantial evidence in the record.

Reichhold Energy Corp. v. State · filed 1985-05-22(8)(c)

One is that the finding of fact 19 is not supported by the evidence. This claim requires review for substantial evidence in the record. ORS 183.482(8)(c).

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires a court to set aside or remand an agency order that is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.

De St. Germain v. Employment Division · filed 1985-07-17(8)(c)

The pertinent standard for review is found in ORS 183.482(8)(c), which provides: “The court shall set aside or remand the order if it finds that the order is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.”

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires an agency order to be supported by substantial evidence when the record is considered as a whole.

Brown v. Adult & Family Services Division · filed 1985-08-21(8)(c)

We hold that, in view of the whole record in this case, the MRT report is neither reasonable evidence nor proof which a reasonable mind would use to reach the conclusion that claimant was not entitled to benefits.

Section 183.482(8)(c) permits reversal and remand when an agency order is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Laws v. Adult & Family Services Division · filed 1986-02-12(8)(c)

The issue is whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Division’s action. ORS 183.482(8)(c). We conclude that there is not and reverse and remand for reconsideration.

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires the court to uphold an Employment Appeals Board decision when the record, viewed as a whole, contains substantial evidence supporting it.

Wood v. Employment Division · filed 1986-06-04(8)(c)

This court must uphold a decision of EAB if it is supported by substantial evidence in the record when viewed as a whole. ORS 183.482(8)(c).

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires a reviewing court to set aside an order that is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Dennison v. Oregon State Penitentiary · filed 1986-03-04(8)(c)

ORS 183.482(8) (c) requires the reviewing court to set aside an “order if it finds that the order is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.”

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires setting aside or remanding an order unsupported by substantial evidence, judged by whether the whole record would permit a reasonable person to make the finding, and that standard applies to PSRB orders.

Welsh v. Psychiatric Security Review Board · filed 1986-11-12(8)(c)

“The court shall set aside or remand the order if it finds that the order is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” ... ORS 183.482(8) applies to PSRB orders. ORS 161.385(8)(c).

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires a reviewing court to set aside or remand an agency order when the record lacks substantial evidence supporting it.

Thomas v. Employment Division · filed 1988-04-20(8)(c)

Assuming that petitioner was negligent in failing to detect the alteration of the receipt, it was not recurring negligence, because there is no evidence to suggest that he had previously been negligent in this or any way. See ORS 183.482(8)(c). ... Without an explanation from EAB, we are unable to determine whether its decision is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires whole-record substantial-evidence review and permits setting aside or remanding an order only when the record would not permit a reasonable person to make the agency’s finding.

Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co. · filed 1988-03-23(8)(c)

ORS 183.482(8)(c) requires us to set aside or remand a final order which is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires the appellate court to uphold an agency finding of fact when it is supported by substantial evidence.

Cascade Bargaining Council v. Jefferson County School District No. 509-J · filed 1987-01-28(8)(c)

Because that intention is an issue of fact, and because the resolution of that issue determines the proper construction of the agreement, we are bound by ERB’s findings if they are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires an agency order to be supported by substantial evidence in the whole record, and the court applied that standard to the Board’s aggravation finding.

Larson v. State Board of Parole · filed 1988-06-22(8)(c)

There is, however, substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding of aggravation, based on petitioner’s “after death, extreme mutilation of corpse.” ORS 183.482(8)(c).

Section 183.482(8)(c) limits judicial review of agency factual findings to whether the record as a whole would permit a reasonable person to make the finding.

Forelaws on Board v. Energy Facility Siting Council · filed 1988-07-26(8)(c)

Judicial review of the evidentiary sufficiency of findings of fact under the Oregon APA is for “substantial evidence,” which is defined to exist when “the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” ORS 183.482(8)(c).

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires an Employment Appeals Board decision to be supported by substantial evidence in the whole record.

York v. Employment Division · filed 1988-08-17(8)(c)

The decision of the EAB must be supported by substantial evidence in the whole record. ORS 657.282, ORS 183.482(8)(c). Although much of the evidence may be susceptible to more than one interpretation, we hold that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the relevant findings of the referee as adopted by EAB.

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires appellate courts to review agency factual findings for substantial evidence in the record.

Tri-Met, Inc. v. Albrecht · filed 1989-08-01(8)(c)

Unless defined by rules, refusal or obstruction is a finding of fact to be made on the evidentiary record and to be reviewed for substantial evidence. ORS 183.482(8) (c).

Section 183.482(8)(c) treats a finding as supported by substantial evidence when the record viewed as a whole would permit a reasonable person to make it.

Snow v. Oregon State Penitentiary · filed 1989-08-29(8)(c)

We next consider whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Superintendent’s order. Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record viewed as a whole would permit a reasonable person to make that finding. ORS 183.482(8)(c).

Section 183.482(8)(c) defines substantial evidence as whether the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make the finding.

Argonaut Insurance v. Rush · filed 1989-10-11(8)(c)

Instead, we review for substantial evidence; that is, whether “the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” ORS 183.482(8)(c).

Section 183.482(8)(c) treats evidence as substantial when the whole record would permit a reasonable person to make the agency's finding, and hearsay is not categorically excluded.

Reguero v. Teacher Standards & Practices Commission · filed 1990-03-21(8)(c)

ORS 183.482(8)(c) defines substantial evidence to exist, for purposes of our review of an agency finding, "when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding." The legislature could not have intended that a certain type of evidence, although reliable enough to be admissible under ORS 183.450(1), is categorically incapable of being substantial enough to permit a reasonable person to find in accordance with it under ORS 183.482(8)(c). We hold that hearsay evidence is not, per se, incapable of being "substantial evidence" under ORS 183.482(8)(c).

Section 183.482(8)(c) permits affirmance when substantial evidence, including countervailing as well as supporting evidence, would allow a reasonable person to find a violation.

Accident Prevention Division v. Surcamp · filed 1990-04-04(8)(c)

There is substantial evidence on the basis of countervailing as well as supporting evidence from which a reasonable person could find that there was a violation. ORS 183.482(8) (c).

Section 183.482(8)(c) treats a finding as supported by substantial evidence when the record viewed as a whole would permit a reasonable person to make it.

Scarborough v. Children's Services Division · filed 1990-11-07(8)(c)

“Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” ORS 183.482(8)(c). ... There is substantial evidence in the record to support the finding that the certificate was not revoked as a retaliatory measure.

Section 183.482(8)(c) treats a factual finding as supported by substantial evidence when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.

Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. v. Over · filed 1991-05-01(8)(c)

“Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, permits a reasonable person to make that finding. ORS 183.482(8)(c); ... (1990). There is substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding that employer does not provide transportation between work sites.”

On review under § 183.482(8)(c), an agency’s factual inference is upheld when a reasonable person could draw it from the evidence in the record.

Arkad Enterprises, Inc. v. Bureau of Labor & Industries · filed 1991-05-29(8)(c)

Petitioner asserts that there is not substantial evidence to support that finding. ORS 183.482(8)(c). ... Thus, if a reasonable person, on the basis of the evidence in the record, could draw the inference that Madden’s discharge was due to his cooperation with APD, BOLI’s decision “must prevail, no matter what the court might believe from the evidence.” ... Although BOLI’s inference that the discharge was because of cooperation with APD is not compelled by the facts, it is reasonable, and we cannot disturb it.

Section 183.482(8)(c) treats an agency finding as supported by substantial evidence when the record viewed as a whole would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.

Halling v. Employment Division · filed 1991-08-21(8)(c)

Substantial evidence exists to support a finding if the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding. ORS 183.482(8)(c).

Subsection (8)(c) requires a reviewing court to assess substantial evidence by considering the record as a whole and not substituting its view of the evidence for the agency's finding.

Garcia v. Boise Cascade Corp. · filed 1990-02-22(8)(c)

As stated above, substantial evidence supports a finding when the record, viewed as a whole, permits a reasonable person to make the finding.

Section 183.482(8)(c) permits affirming an agency finding when the record contains evidence from which the finding can reasonably be inferred, even if the evidence does not use the statute's exact wording.

Liberty Northwest Insurance v. Cross · filed 1991-10-02(8)(c)

Employer argues next that the Board lacked substantial evidence for its finding that claimant’s work activities were the major contributing cause of his irritant reaction. ORS 183.482(8)(c). ... We do not require that medical evidence consist of a specific incantation or that it mimic the statutory language. The Board could infer from Montanaro’s statement and the entire report that claimant’s work activities were the major contributing cause of his irritant reaction and disability.

Section 183.482(8)(c) treats a finding as supported by substantial evidence when the record as a whole would permit a reasonable person to make it, requiring consideration of both supporting and countervailing evidence.

Middleton v. Department of Human Services · filed 2008-04-23(8)(c)

“[S]ubstantial evidence supports a finding when the record, viewed as a whole, permits a reasonable person to make the finding. ORS 183.482(8)(c). A court must ‘evaluate the substantiality of supporting evidence by considering all the evidence in the record.’ * * * That is, the court must evaluate evidence against the finding as well as evidence supporting it to determine whether substantial evidence exists to support that finding. If a fin ding is reasonable in light of countervailing as well as supporting evidence, the finding is supported by substantial evidence.”

Subsection (7) confines judicial review of an agency order to the record, and subsection (8)(c) requires affirmance unless the order lacks substantial evidence, which exists when the record as a whole would permit a reasonable person to make the finding.

Wille v. Board of Parole · filed 2024-02-28(7), (8)(c)

Our review of the board’s order is “confined to the record.” ORS 183.482(7). ... We must affirm the board unless its “order is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.” ORS 183.482(8)(c). ... “Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” ORS 183.482(8)(c).

Section 183.482(8)(c) defines substantial evidence as evidence that, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make the finding, and the court applies that standard when reviewing an agency's additional factual finding.

Bice v. Board of Psychologist Examiners · filed 2016-10-12(8)(c)

“Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” ORS 183.482(8)(c). ... SM’s testimony is very different in character from the board’s finding; thus, we conclude that the board’s finding is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 183.482(8)(c) defines substantial evidence by asking whether the record as a whole would permit a reasonable person to make the finding, and it does not categorically exclude hearsay from consideration.

Reguero v. Teacher Standards & Practices Commission · filed 1991-12-12(8)(c)

ORS 183.482(8)(c) provides that "[s]ubstantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding." ... Accordingly, we reject the residuum rule and affirm the Court of Appeals' holding that hearsay evidence alone, even if inadmissible in a civil or criminal trial, is not incapable of being "substantial evidence" under ORS 183.482(8)(c).

Section 183.482(8)(c) permits reversal of an agency order when the agency's finding is not supported by substantial evidence.

Hodgin v. Psychiatric Security Review Board · filed 1992-06-24(8)(c)

The state's evidence establishes, at best, only a possibility that petitioner is affected by a mental disease or defect, not that he is. PSRB's finding that petitioner is affected by a mental disease or defect is not supported by substantial evidence. ORS 183.482(8)(c); Valleur v. Psychiatric Review Board, 43 Or.App. 843, 845, 604 P.2d 439 (1979).

Section 183.482(8)(c) treats a finding as supported by substantial evidence when a reasonable person could make the same finding after reviewing the entire record.

Irvington Transfer v. Jasenosky · filed 1992-12-02(8)(c)

Substantial evidence supports a finding when a reasonable person could make the same finding after reviewing the entire record. ORS 183.482(8)(c).

Subsection (8)(c) upholds an agency finding when the record contains substantial evidence supporting it.

Noren v. Board of Chiropractic Examiners · filed 1992-12-23(8)(c)

The board’s finding that she practiced chiropractic after her license expired is supported by substantial evidence. ORS 183.482(8)(c).

Section 183.482(8)(a) calls for substantial-evidence review of an agency’s finding about reasonableness when the agency applied the correct legal standard.

Tattoo v. Barrett Business Service · filed 1993-02-24(8)(a)

If the Board uses the correct legal standard, then we review its finding about reasonableness for substantial evidence. 93 Or App at 592; ORS 183.482(8)(a).

Subsection (8)(c) requires an appellate court to set aside or remand an agency order lacking substantial evidence and defines substantial evidence as evidence that would permit a reasonable person to make the finding when the record is viewed as a whole.

Martin v. Psychiatric Security Review Board · filed 1991-10-10(8)(c)

“shall set aside or remand the order if it finds that the order is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.”

The statute treats a finding as supported by substantial evidence when the record as a whole would allow a reasonable person to make it.

Brookshire v. Senior & Disabled Services Division · filed 1992-12-02(8)(c)

Substantial evidence exists to support a finding when the record, viewed as a whole, would allow a reasonable person to make that finding. ORS 183.482(8)(c). ... If an agency’s finding is reasonable, keeping in mind the evidence both for and against its finding, there is substantial evidence.

Subsection (8)(c) treats substantial evidence as present when the record viewed as a whole would permit a reasonable person to make the finding.

HDG Enterprises, Inc. v. Filings of the National Council on Compensation Insurance · filed 1993-07-07(8)(c)

When the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make a finding, substantial evidence supports that finding. ORS 183.482(8)(c). Here, the record does not permit a reasonable person to make a finding that there was no evidence of compliance. We remand for reconsideration on this issue.

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires an agency order to be set aside or remanded when it is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Cook v. Psychiatric Security Review Board · filed 1993-10-06(8)(c)

On these facts, PSRB’s finding that petitioner is affected by a mental disease or defect is not supported by substantial evidence. ORS 183.482(8)(c).

Section 183.482(8)(c) treats a finding as supported by substantial evidence when the record viewed as a whole would permit a reasonable person to make it.

Rawlins v. Bohy · filed 1993-12-08(8)(c)

“Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding. ” ORS 183.482(8)(c). ... We conclude that the Board’s finding that plaintiff had a line of credit from which he could have obtained funds is supported by substantial evidence. ... In the light of that evidence, we conclude that the Board’s finding is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 183.482(8)(c) requires substantial-evidence review based on whether the record as a whole would permit a reasonable person to make the challenged factual finding.

Dodd v. Hood River County · filed 1993-07-22(8)(c)

Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.

Section 183.482(8) requires a reviewing court to set aside or remand an agency order unsupported by substantial evidence and defines substantial evidence by the reasonable-person whole-record test.

Drew v. Psychiatric Security Review Board · filed 1996-02-01(8)

The court shall set aside or remand the order if it finds that the order is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.

Section 183.482(8)(c) asks whether the record viewed as a whole would permit a reasonable person to make the agency’s factual finding.

Winroth v. Driver & Motor Vehicle Services · filed 1996-05-01(8)(c)

"Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding."

Section 183.482(8)(c) defines substantial evidence as evidence that, viewing the record as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make the finding.

North Pacific Utility Contractors, Inc. v. Filings of the National Council on Compensation Insurance · filed 1996-06-12(8)(c)

“Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.”

(8)(c) requires affirmance of a factual finding when the record, viewed as a whole, permits a reasonable person to make it.

SAIF Corp. v. Moe · filed 1996-07-03(8)(c)

Although there is some evidence to the contrary, viewed as a whole, the record permits a reasonable person to reach the board's conclusion. ORS 183.482(8)(c).

Section 183.482(8)(c) limits judicial review of an agency order to determining whether the order is supported by substantial evidence on the whole record.

Winters v. Woodburn Carcraft Co. · filed 1996-07-10(8)(c)

On review of the Board’s decision, our role is limited to evaluating whether the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. ORS 183.482(8)(c). “Substantial evidence” consists of evidence that, when the record is viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make a finding.

Section 183.482(8)(c) treats a finding as supported by substantial evidence when the whole record would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.

Osborn v. Psychiatric Security Review Board · filed 1997-03-27(8)(c)

“Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” ORS 183.482(8)(c).

Section 183.482(8)(c) directs the reviewing court to examine agency findings of fact for substantial evidence.

Coffey v. Employment Department · filed 1997-04-30(8)(c)

Claimant raises multiple assignments of error. We begin with those assignments that concern EAB’s findings of fact, which we examine to determine whether they are supported by substantial evidence. ORS 183.482(8)(c). We conclude that they are and briefly discuss only some of claimant’s arguments.