2 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 704

Section 704 limits review of an agency decision to substantial evidence for necessary findings, errors of law, and violations of constitutional rights.

Cardiac Science, Inc. v. Department of General Services · filed 2002-10-21

On review, we are limited to determining whether the agency’s necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether the agency committed an error of law or whether Cardiac Science’s constitutional rights were violated.

Section 704 requires affirmance of a workers’ compensation adjudication unless the court finds legal error, a constitutional violation, a failure to follow agency procedure, or a necessary finding unsupported by substantial evidence.

Reinforced Earth Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board · filed 2002-11-06

In workers' compensation cases, we must affirm the adjudication below, unless we find that an error of law was committed, that constitutional rights were violated, that a practice or procedure of a Commonwealth agency was not followed or that any necessary finding of fact is not supported by substantial evidence of record.

Section 704 limits review of an agency decision to whether its findings have substantial evidence, it made an error of law, or constitutional rights were violated.

Williams v. Department of Public Welfare · filed 2002-12-04

This Court's scope of review is limited to determining whether the agency’s findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence. an error of law was made, or constitutional rights were violated. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 704; Toney v. Department of Public Welfare, 127 Pa.Cmwlth. 162, 561 A.2d 75 (1989).

Section 704 limits review of an agency decision to constitutional violations, errors of law, and whether necessary factual findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Sun Oil Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board · filed 2002-12-10

Our standard of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether an error of law was committed or whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 directs a reviewing court to affirm an agency adjudication unless it violates constitutional rights or law, agency procedure was violated, or a necessary factual finding lacks substantial evidence.

Reinert v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board · filed 2003-02-11

The Court’s review is prescribed in Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. § 704, which provides that the Court shall affirm unless it determines that the adjudication is in violation of the constitutional rights of the petitioner, that it is not in accordance with law, that provisions relating to practice and procedure of Commonwealth agencies in Sections 501-508 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. §§ 501-508, have been violated or that any necessary finding of fact is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 704 limits review of a Board decision to legal errors, findings unsupported by substantial evidence, and constitutional violations.

Johnson v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board · filed 2003-02-20

This Court’s scope of review of a Board's decision is limited to determining whether an error of law was committed, findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence or constitutional rights were violated.

Section 704 limits review of agency adjudications to constitutional violations, errors of law, and whether necessary findings are supported by substantial evidence.

R.P. v. Department of Public Welfare · filed 2003-04-09

This Court's scope of review in expunction proceedings is limited to a determination of whether constitutional rights were violated, whether errors of law were committed, or whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits appellate review to substantial evidence, Board procedures, constitutional rights, and errors of law.

Solomon v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board · filed 2003-04-15

This Court's review is limited to a determination of whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether Board procedures were violated, whether constitutional rights were violated, or an error of law was committed.

Section 704 requires the court to affirm an agency adjudication unless it finds a constitutional, legal, or procedural error, or a necessary finding of fact lacks substantial evidence.

Orend v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review · filed 2003-04-17

The Court's review of the Board’s order is prescribed in Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 704, which provides that the Court shall affirm unless it determines that the adjudication is in violation of the constitutional rights of the petitioner, that it is not in accordance with law, that provisions relating to practice and procedure of Commonwealth agencies in Sections 501— 508 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. §§ 501 — 508, have been violated or that any necessary finding of fact is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 704 limits review of a board order to constitutional violations, errors of law, and findings unsupported by substantial evidence.

Ralph v. State Board of Cosmetology · filed 2003-04-24

Our scope of review of the Board's order is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, an error of law was committed, or whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits review of a Commission adjudication to whether necessary findings are supported by substantial evidence, an error of law occurred, or constitutional rights were violated.

Giovagnoli v. CIVIL SERV. COMM.(MONROE COUNTY CYS) · filed 2003-05-01

We initially note that our scope of review of a Commission adjudication is limited to determining whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether an error of law has been committed or whether constitutional rights have been violated. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 704; Pennsylvania Game Commission v. State Civil Service Commission, 561 Pa. 19, 747 A.2d 887 (2000).

Section 704 limits review of a Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board decision to errors of law, findings unsupported by substantial evidence, and constitutional violations.

Allied Products & Services v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board · filed 2003-05-14

This Court’s review of a Board’s decision is limited to determining whether an error of law was committed, findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence or constitutional rights were violated. Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 704; Vinglinsky v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Penn Installation), 139 Pa.Cmwlth.15, 589 A.2d 291 (1991).

Section 704 limits review in workers' compensation appeals to constitutional violations, errors of law, departures from agency procedure, and whether the WCJ's findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Gunter v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board · filed 2003-06-16

This Court's scope of review in workers' compensation matters is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether an error of law was committed, whether a practice or procedure of a Commonwealth agency was not followed, and whether the WCJ's findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. 2 Pa.C.S. § 704; Udvari v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (USAir, Inc.), 550 Pa. 319, 322, 705 A.2d 1290, 1291 (1997).

Section 704 requires a court to affirm an agency adjudication unless it finds a constitutional violation, an error of law, a violation of specified agency procedures, or a necessary finding unsupported by substantial evidence.

Porco v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review · filed 2003-07-07

The Court’s review of the Board’s decision is prescribed in Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 704, which provides that the Court shall affirm unless it determines that the adjudication is in violation of the petitioner's constitutional rights, that it is not in accordance with law, that provisions relating to practice and procedure of the Commonwealth agencies in Sections 501-508 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. §§ 501-508, have been violated or that any necessary findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 requires a court to affirm an agency adjudication unless it violates constitutional rights or law, agency procedure was violated, or a necessary finding lacks substantial evidence.

Zink v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board · filed 2003-07-10

The Court's review of the Board's decision is prescribed in Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 704, which provides that the Court shall affirm unless it determines that the adjudication is in violation of the petitioner's constitutional rights, that it is not in accordance with law, that provisions relating to practice and procedure of Commonwealth agencies in Sections 501-508 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. §§ 501-508, have been violated or that any necessary finding of fact is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits judicial review of an agency adjudication to constitutional violations, legal errors, and findings unsupported by substantial evidence.

Beverly Healthcare-Murrysville v. Department of Public Welfare · filed 2003-07-15

This Court’s review of the Bureau’s adjudication is limited to determining whether the adjudication violated constitutional rights or was not in accordance with the law, or whether the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 704; H.D. v. Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, 751 A.2d 1216 (Pa.Cmwlth.2000).

Section 704 limits review of an agency order to constitutional violations, errors of law, and findings unsupported by substantial evidence.

Carbondale Area School District v. Fell Charter School · filed 2003-07-23

Our scope of review of an order of the CAB is limited to whether constitutional rights were violated, errors of law were committed, or the decision is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 makes factual findings supported by substantial evidence binding on appeal and prevents the reviewing court from reweighing credibility and evidence.

Cadillac v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board · filed 2003-09-04

However, it is well-settled that where, as here, the WCJ’s findings are supported by substantial evidence, they are binding on appeal, and this court may not substitute its own judgment with regard to the credibility and weight to be given evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 704; Lehigh County Vo-Tech School v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Wolfe), 539 Pa. 322, 652 A.2d 797 (1995).

Section 704 limits review of administrative agency appeals to constitutional violations, errors of law, failures to follow agency practice or procedure, and findings unsupported by substantial evidence.

Schott Glass Technologies, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review · filed 2003-09-18

The Court’s review in administrative agency appeals is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether an error of law was committed, whether a practice or procedure of a Commonwealth agency was not followed and whether the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 704 ordinarily permits review of agency decisions for constitutional compliance, legal and procedural compliance, and factual support, but review of an AGR soldier’s separation under federal military regulations is limited to whether the Adjutant General followed the federally mandated procedures.

Kise v. Department of Military · filed 2003-09-25

Ordinarily, review of a decision of a Commonwealth agency proceeds pursuant to Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 704, which authorizes judicial review for constitutional compliance, adherence to applicable law and procedure, and record support for factual findings. ... The net effect is that the Commonwealth Court's review of a separation action involving an AGR soldier, where separation is accomplished in reliance on federal, military regulations and no supplemental state procedures are required or invoked, is effectively limited to the determination whether the Adjutant General adhered to the federally mandated procedures.

Section 704 limits judicial review of administrative agency appeals to constitutional violations, legal errors, agency procedural violations, and findings unsupported by substantial evidence.

Lord & Taylor v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board · filed 2003-10-20

The Court’s review in administrative agency appeals is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether an error of law was committed, whether a practice or procedure of a Commonwealth agency was not followed and whether the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 704 limits appellate reversal of a workers' compensation adjudication to constitutional, legal, procedural, or substantial-evidence grounds.

Rossa v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board · filed 2003-12-30

Appellate review in workers' compensation matters is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether an error of law was committed, whether the practices and procedures of the Workers' Compensation Bureau were followed, and whether the findings of fact made by the WCJ and necessary to support its decision were supported by substantial evidence. ... Nothing in the decision of eligibility violates Section 704; therefore, this Court has no grounds to reverse.

Section 704 requires affirmance of a Board adjudication unless it violates constitutional rights or law, or a necessary factual finding lacks substantial evidence.

Agresta v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board · filed 2004-06-04

Our review is prescribed by 2 Pa.C.S. § 704, and we must affirm unless the Board’s adjudication is in violation of constitutional rights, is not in accordance with the law, or any necessary finding of fact is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits review of an agency adjudication to constitutional violations, errors of law, and whether necessary findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Hargrove v. Pennsylvania State Civil Service Commission · filed 2004-06-15

This Court's review of the Commission’s adjudication is limited to determining whether constitutional rights have been violated, whether an error of law has been committed, or whether necessary finding of the Commission are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits review of a PUC decision to constitutional violations, legal errors, and whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence.

Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission · filed 2004-07-13

This Court's standard of review of the PUC's decision is limited to a determination of whether constitutional rights have been violated, an error of law committed or whether the findings, determinations or order are supported by substantial evidence. 2 Pa.C.S. § 704; Equitable Gas Company v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 113 Pa.Cmwlth. 68, 536 A.2d 846, 848 (1988).

Section 704 limits judicial review of an agency decision to constitutional violations, errors of law, failures to follow agency procedure, and findings unsupported by substantial evidence.

Brenner v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board · filed 2004-07-16

The Court’s review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, an error of law was committed, a Board practice or procedure was not followed and whether the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 704 limits review of a Board order to constitutional violations, errors of law, failures to follow Board procedure, and findings unsupported by substantial evidence.

Higgins v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board · filed 2004-07-28

The Court’s review of the Board’s order is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, an error of law was committed, a practice or procedure of the Board was not followed and whether the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 704 requires a court to affirm a Commonwealth agency’s adjudication unless it is contrary to law or a necessary factual finding lacks substantial evidence.

Manorcare Health Services-Lansdale v. Pennsylvania Department of Health · filed 2004-07-28

Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 704, requires that we affirm the adjudication of a Commonwealth agency unless we find that it is not in accordance with law or that any finding of fact made by the agency and necessary to support its adjudication is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits review of an agency decision to constitutional violations, errors of law, and findings unsupported by substantial evidence.

Reading School District v. Department of Education · filed 2004-08-06

Our standard of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights have been violated, errors of law have been committed, or whether the decision is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits review of an administrative agency appeal to constitutional violations, legal errors, failures to follow required agency procedures, and findings unsupported by substantial evidence.

Kinderschool v. Department of Public Welfare · filed 2004-11-16

The Court’s review in an administrative agency appeal is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether an error of law was committed, whether a required practice or procedure of the administrative agency was not followed and whether the necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 704 limits review of a Board decision to constitutional violations, errors of law, procedural departures, and findings unsupported by substantial evidence.

Curren v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board · filed 2004-12-21

The Court's review of the Board’s decision is limited to determining whether there were constitutional violations or errors of law, whether a practice or procedure of the Board was not followed and whether the necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 704 limits review in expunction proceedings to constitutional violations, errors of law, and findings unsupported by substantial evidence.

C. K. v. Department of Public Welfare · filed 2005-03-01

Our review in expunction proceedings is limited to a determination of whether constitutional rights were violated, whether errors of law were committed, or whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 requires affirmance of a workers' compensation adjudication unless the reviewing court finds legal error, a constitutional violation, a failure to follow agency practice or procedure, or a necessary finding unsupported by substantial evidence.

Colpetzer v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board · filed 2005-03-30

This Court's standard of review in workers' compensation appeals is settled: we will affirm the adjudication below unless we find that an error of law was committed, that constitutional rights were violated, that a practice or procedure of a Commonwealth agency was not followed or that any necessary finding of fact is not supported by substantial evidence of record.

Section 704 directs a court reviewing a Commission adjudication to consider whether it accords with law, violates constitutional rights, or has factual findings supported by substantial evidence.

Spanish Council of York, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission · filed 2005-07-20

This Court’s scope of review of a Commission matter is whether the adjudication is in accordance with law, whether constitutional rights have been violated or whether the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits review of necessary agency findings of fact to whether substantial evidence supports them.

Solano v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole · filed 2005-07-28

Our scope of review under Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 704, therefore, is limited to determining whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits review of an administrative agency decision to constitutional violations, errors of law, failures to follow agency procedures, and necessary factual findings unsupported by substantial evidence.

Malt Beverages Distributors Ass'n v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board · filed 2005-08-18

The Court’s review of a decision of the Board as an administrative agency is limited to determining whether there was a constitutional violation or an error of law, whether the practices and procedures of the Board were followed and whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 704 requires the court to affirm a Board adjudication unless it violates constitutional rights or law, or a necessary finding of fact lacks substantial evidence.

Taylor v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board · filed 2005-09-08

Our review is prescribed by 2 Pa.C.S. § 704, and we must affirm unless the Board’s adjudication is in violation of constitutional rights, is not in accordance with the law, or any necessary finding of fact is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 requires a court to uphold an agency adjudication unless it violates constitutional rights, is contrary to law, or lacks substantial evidence for a necessary finding.

Suber v. Pennsylvania Commission on Crime & Delinquency · filed 2005-10-28

Our scope of review of the Board’s determination is that this Court shall uphold an adjudication unless it violates constitutional rights, is not in accordance with law or a necessary finding is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 permits review of an agency adjudication for errors of law, constitutional violations, and factual findings unsupported by substantial evidence.

INSURANCE FEDERATION OF PA v. Dept. of Ins. · filed 2005-12-30

The standard of review when determining the validity of an agency adjudication is whether there has been an error of law, whether constitutional rights have been violated, or whether the agency's factual findings are supported by substantial evidence. 2 Pa.C.S. § 704; Bowman v. Dept. of Environmental Resources, 549 Pa. 65, 700 A.2d 427, 428 (1997).

Section 704 limits review in workers’ compensation appeals to errors of law, constitutional violations, and whether substantial evidence supports necessary findings of fact.

Acme Markets, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board · filed 2006-01-03

Our scope of review in workers’ compensation appeals is limited to determining whether an error of law was committed, constitutional rights were violated, or whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits review of an agency order to whether necessary findings are supported by substantial evidence, an error of law was committed, or constitutional rights were violated.

Zaborowski v. Pennsylvania State Police · filed 2006-02-09

Our scope of review is limited to determining whether necessary findings are supported by substantial evidence, an error of law was committed or whether constitutional rights were violated.

Section 704 supplies the standard of review for an administrative agency appeal when the governing statute specifies none: constitutional violations, errors of law, and findings unsupported by substantial evidence.

Van Osdol v. Department of Transportation · filed 2006-10-12

Without a specific scope of review from the General Assembly, we apply the standard one for an appeal from an administrative agency as set forth in Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 704: whether constitutional rights have been violated, whether an error of law has been committed, or whether findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits review of a Board decision to whether necessary factual findings are supported by substantial evidence, an error of law occurred, or the parolee’s constitutional rights were violated.

Armbruster v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole · filed 2007-03-13

This Court’s scope of review of a decision by the Board is limited to determining whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether an error of law was committed, or whether the constitutional rights of the parolee was violated.

Section 704 limits judicial review of an agency decision to whether findings are supported by substantial evidence, whether the agency made an error of law, and whether constitutional rights were violated.

Kenneth S. Hantman, Inc. v. Office of Unemployment Compensation Tax Services · filed 2007-07-11

Our scope of review of the Secretary’s decision is limited to determining whether the necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether there has been an error of law or whether a petitioner’s constitutional rights have been violated.

Section 704 limits review of a Board adjudication to constitutional violations, legal error, and whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

Abrams v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole · filed 2007-11-09

Our scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether the adjudication was in accordance with law, or whether the necessary findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits review of a PUC order to constitutional violations, errors of law, procedural violations, and whether necessary findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission · filed 2007-12-27

Generally, appellate review of a PUC order is limited to determining whether a constitutional violation, an error of law, or a violation of procedure has occurred and whether the necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 requires a reviewing court to affirm an agency adjudication unless it violates constitutional rights or law, violates required procedure, or lacks substantial evidence for necessary findings.

Walsh v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review · filed 2008-02-20

Initially, we note that this Court’s review of the Board’s decision is set forth in Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 704, which provides that the Court shall affirm unless it determines that the adjudication is in violation of the claimant’s constitutional rights, that it is not in accordance with law, that provisions relating to practice and procedure of the Board have been violated, or that any necessary findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits review of a final DPW order to errors of law, constitutional violations, and whether necessary findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Altagracia De Pena Family Day Care v. Department of Public Welfare · filed 2008-02-28

Our scope of review of a final order of DPW is limited to determining whether an error of law was committed, whether constitutional rights were violated or whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits review of an agency decision to constitutional violations, errors of law, and whether necessary factual findings are supported by substantial evidence.

K.R. v. Department of Public Welfare · filed 2008-06-04

Our "scope of review in expunction proceedings is limited to a determination of whether constitutional rights were violated, whether errors of law were committed, or whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.”

Section 704 limits judicial review of a Board order to constitutional violations, errors of law, failures to follow Board practice or procedure, and findings unsupported by substantial evidence.

Repash v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board · filed 2008-11-10

The Court’s review of the Board’s order is limited to determining whether a petitioner’s constitutional rights were violated, an error of law was committed, a Board practice or procedure was not followed and whether the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits review of a Board decision to legal and constitutional errors and whether necessary factual findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Smith v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review · filed 2009-02-27

This Court’s standard of review of a decision of the Board is limited to considering whether the Board erred as a matter of law or committed any constitutional violations, and whether any necessary factual findings are supported by substantial evidence. 2 Pa.C.S. § 704; Nolan v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 797 A.2d 1042 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2002).

Section 704 limits judicial review to whether necessary findings are supported by substantial evidence, an error of law was committed, or constitutional rights were violated.

EAT'N PARK HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review · filed 2009-03-03

This Court's scope of review is limited to a determination of whether necessary findings are supported by substantial evidence, an error of law committed, or any constitutional rights violated.

Section 704 limits review of agency decisions to constitutional violations, errors of law, and findings unsupported by substantial evidence.

W. S. v. Department of Public Welfare · filed 2005-09-09

Our review in expunction proceedings is limited to a determination of whether constitutional rights were violated, whether errors of law were committed, or whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits judicial review of an agency order to constitutional violations, errors of law, and whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

Esab Welding & Cutting Products v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board · filed 2009-08-10

The Court's review of the Board's order is limited to determining whether Claimant's constitutional rights have been violated, whether an error of law has been committed or whether the necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits review of an agency adjudication to constitutional violations, errors of law, and findings unsupported by substantial evidence.

Southwest Airlines/Cambridge Integrated Service v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board · filed 2009-12-04

The scope of our review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether an error of law was committed or whether the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 requires a court to affirm an agency adjudication unless it finds a constitutional violation, an error of law or procedure, or a necessary factual finding unsupported by substantial evidence.

Balshy v. Pennsylvania State Police · filed 2010-02-08

As to our standard of review, this Court shall affirm the adjudication unless it shall find the adjudication is in violation of the constitutional rights of the appellants, or is not in accordance with law, or the statutory provisions controlling practice and procedure of Commonwealth agencies have been violated in the proceedings before the agency, or any finding of fact made by the agency and necessary to support its adjudication is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits review of agency adjudications to constitutional violations, errors of law, and whether findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

Bethea-Tumani v. Bureau of Professional & Occupational Affairs · filed 2010-04-28

This Court’s scope of review is limited to determining whether there has been a violation of constitutional rights, errors of law committed, or whether findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits review of an administrative decision to whether necessary findings have substantial evidence, an error of law was committed, or constitutional rights were violated.

Freeman v. Pennsylvania State Police · filed 2010-06-30

Our review is "limited to determining whether necessary findings are supported by substantial evidence, an error of law was committed or whether constitutional rights were violated”.

Section 704 limits review of a Board decision to constitutional violations, errors of law, procedural irregularities, and whether the agency’s findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Borough of Ellwood City v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board · filed 2010-07-21

As a general proposition, when reviewing a decision of the Board, our review is limited to determining whether there has been a violation of constitutional rights, an error of law, procedural irregularity, or whether the findings of the agency are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits review of an agency decision to errors of law, constitutional violations, and findings unsupported by substantial evidence.

D.Z. v. Bethlehem Area School District · filed 2010-07-27

Our review is limited to determining whether an error of law was committed, whether constitutional rights were violated, or whether necessary findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 704: Lower Merion Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 878 A.2d 925 (Pa.Cmwlth.2005), aff'd, 593 Pa. 437, 931 A.2d 640 (2007).

Section 704 limits review of a Commission order to errors of law, constitutional violations, and necessary factual findings unsupported by substantial evidence.

M.T. v. Department of Education · filed 2010-08-05

This Court’s standard of review of an order of the Commission is limited to considering whether the Commission erred as a matter of law or violated any constitutional rights, and whether any necessary factual findings are not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits review of a Board order to constitutional violations, errors of law, and findings unsupported by substantial evidence.

Lt Intern. v. State Bd. of Cosmetology · filed 2011-01-28

Our scope of review of the Board's order is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, an error of law was committed, or whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits review of a PUC decision to whether substantial evidence supports necessary factual findings, whether the PUC erred as a matter of law, or whether constitutional rights were violated.

Llyod v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission · filed 2011-03-01

This Court’s standard of review of a decision of the PUC is limited to considering whether substantial evidence supports necessary factual findings, whether the PUC erred as a matter of law, and whether any constitutional rights were violated. 2 Pa.C.S. § 704; PECO Energy Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 568 Pa. 39, 46, 791 A.2d 1155, 1160 (2002).

Section 704 limits review of an unemployment compensation appeal to errors of law, constitutional violations, and whether substantial evidence supports necessary findings of fact.

Chapman v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review · filed 2011-04-25

This Court's scope of review in an unemployment compensation appeal is limited to determining whether an error of law was committed, whether constitutional rights were violated, or whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits review of an agency decision to whether necessary findings have substantial evidence, the agency made a legal error, or constitutional rights were violated.

Kurbatov v. Department of Labor & Industry · filed 2011-09-30

The Court's review is limited to determining whether the necessary findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence, whether the Department committed an error of law, or whether the petitioner's constitutional rights were violated.

Section 704 limits appellate review of a board decision to constitutional violations, errors of law, procedural irregularities, and whether necessary factual findings have substantial evidence.

500 James Hance Court v. Pennsylvania Prevailing Wage Appeals Board · filed 2011-11-23

Appellate review of the Board's decision is limited to determining whether a constitutional violation, an error of law, or a procedural irregularity has occurred, and whether the necessary factual findings are supported by substantial evidence. See 2 Pa.C.S. § 704; Pa. Nat'l I, 552 Pa. at 391 n. 3, 715 A.2d at 1071 n. 3; Leonard S. Fiore, Inc. v. PWAB, 526 Pa. 282, 293, 585 A.2d 994, 1000 (1991). The present case is centered on the correctness of the legal framework employed by the Board to resolve Appellees' grievance and on evidentiary sufficiency.

Section 704 limits review of a Board decision to constitutional violations, legal errors, procedural irregularities, and whether its findings are supported by substantial evidence.

City of Erie v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board · filed 2011-11-23

Generally, when reviewing a decision of the Board, our Court’s review is limited to determining whether there has been a violation of constitutional rights, an error of law, procedural irregularity, or whether its findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits review of state agency decisions to whether substantial evidence supports necessary factual findings and whether the agency made a legal error or violated constitutional rights.

MKP Enterprises, Inc. v. Underground Storage Tank Indemnification Board · filed 2012-02-09

In accordance with Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 704, in an appeal from a decision of a state agency, this Court’s standard of review is limited to considering whether substantial evidence supports necessary factual findings and whether the administrative agency erred as a matter of law or violated any constitutional rights.

Section 704 limits review of a Department decision to constitutional violations, errors of law, and whether necessary factual findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Novitsky v. Department of Public Welfare · filed 2012-05-15

Our review is limited to determining whether the Department's decision is in violation of constitutional rights, whether an error of law was committed, and whether the necessary factual findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits review of agency decisions to whether necessary findings have substantial evidence and whether the agency violated procedures or constitutional rights or committed an error of law.

Wagner v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board · filed 2012-06-04

Our review is limited to determining whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether the Board’s procedures were violated, whether constitutional rights were violated, or whether an error of law was committed.

Section 704 requires a court to affirm an agency decision unless it violates a constitutional right, is contrary to law, or lacks substantial evidence for necessary factual findings.

Barbour v. Municipal Police Officers' Education & Training Commission · filed 2012-07-05

An administrative agency’s decision must be affirmed, unless it violated a constitutional right, it was not in accordance with law, or any necessary findings of fact made by the agency are not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits appellate review of agency adjudications to constitutional, legal, or procedural errors and whether necessary factual findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Mercury Trucking, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission · filed 2012-11-21

If the Commonwealth Court had properly sat in its appellate capacity, its review in the Commonwealth Court would have been limited to determining whether the Commission violated Mercury’s constitutional rights, the law, or agency procedure; and whether the necessary findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence. ... On appeal to this Court, review is similarly limited, as provided by Section 704 of the AAL.

Section 704 limits review of an agency adjudication to constitutional violations, legal errors, and necessary findings unsupported by substantial evidence.

Beaver County Children & Youth Services v. Department of Public Welfare · filed 2013-05-23

Our scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights have been violated, whether the adjudication is in accordance with the law, or whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits review of an agency decision to whether necessary findings have substantial evidence, the agency committed an error of law, or constitutional rights were violated.

Stauffer v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review · filed 2013-08-19

Our scope of review is limited to determining whether necessary findings of fact are ... supported by substantial evidence, whether an error of law was committed or whether constitutional rights were violated.

Section 704 limits review of a Board of Property order to constitutional violations, errors of law, and whether necessary factual findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Dutch Corner Historical Society v. Stahl · filed 2013-10-04

Our review of the Board's order is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether the adjudication is in accordance with the law, and whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits review of a Bureau fee review decision to whether necessary findings have substantial evidence, the hearing officer made a legal error, or constitutional rights were violated.

Gupta v. Bureau of Workers' Compensation Fee Review Hearing Office · filed 2013-11-21

This Court's scope of review of a fee review decision by the Bureau is limited to considering whether necessary factual findings are supported by substantial evidence, whether the hearing officer erred as a matter of law, and whether any constitutional rights were violated.

Section 704 limits review of an agency adjudication to whether it accords with law, involves an abuse of discretion, or violates constitutional rights.

Irem Temple AAONMS v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board · filed 2014-03-14

Based on the issues raised here, the scope of our review of the Board's order is limited to determining whether the Board’s adjudication is not in accordance with law, whether the Board abused its discretion, or whether constitutional rights were violated.

Section 704 limits review of an agency order to constitutional violations, errors of law, and findings unsupported by substantial evidence.

Pennsylvania Communities Organizing for Change, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission · filed 2014-04-10

This Court’s scope of review of the Commission's order is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether an error of law was committed or whether the necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits review of a DPW adjudication to constitutional violations, errors of law, and whether necessary factual findings are supported by substantial evidence.

KC Equities v. Department of Public Welfare · filed 2014-04-14

Our review in an appeal of an adjudication of DPW is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, an error of law was committed or whether necessary findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits judicial review of a Board adjudication to constitutional violations, errors of law, substantial evidence, and capricious disregard of competent evidence on issues for which the claimant bore the burden of proof.

Malaney v. UCBR · filed 2014-09-02

Our review is limited to determining whether the Board’s adjudication is in violation of constitutional rights, whether an error of law was committed, whether the factual findings are supported by substantial evidence, and whether the Board capriciously disregarded competent evidence on issues as to which Claimant bore the burden of proof. 2 Pa. C.S. § 704; ... These findings are all supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits review of an agency decision to whether its findings have substantial evidence, its adjudication accords with the law, and constitutional rights were violated.

Devine V. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review · filed 2014-10-17

Our scope of review of the Board’s decision that Claimant is financially ineligible for benefits is limited to determining whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether the adjudication is in accordance with the law and whether constitutional rights were violated.

Section 704 directs a court reviewing an agency adjudication to consider legal or constitutional error and whether factual findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Heilbrunn v. State Employees' Retirement Board · filed 2015-01-22

When reviewing an agency adjudication, we determine whether the agency committed an error of law or violated the petitioner’s constitutional rights and whether the agency's findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits judicial review of an agency decision to errors of law, violations of constitutional rights or agency procedures, and whether necessary findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Oyetayo v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review · filed 2015-03-04

Our scope of review of the Board's decision is limited to determining whether errors of law were committed, constitutional rights or agency procedures were violated, and necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 calls for affirming an agency ruling when its essential findings are supported by substantial evidence and there is no constitutional violation, procedural irregularity, or error of law.

American Federation of State v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board · filed 2015-03-25

We will affirm a PLRB ruling so long as its essential findings are supported by substantial evidence and there has been no constitutional violation, procedural irregularity, or error of law. See 2 Pa.C.S. §704; City of Erie v. PLRB, 612 Pa. 661, 671, 32 A.3d 625, 631 (2011).

Section 704 limits review of a Board decision to errors of law, constitutional violations, and whether necessary findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Sydnor v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review · filed 2015-04-10

Our scope of review of the Board’s decision is limited to determining whether an error of law was committed, constitutional rights were violated, or necessary findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 directs appellate review of an unemployment compensation order to whether substantial evidence supports it, the adjudication follows the law, and constitutional rights were violated.

J.M. Faatz v. UCBR · filed 2015-08-11

In unemployment compensation cases, this Court’s review is to determine whether the order of the Board is supported by substantial evidence, whether the adjudication was in accordance with the law, and whether constitutional rights were violated.

Section 704 limits review of an agency adjudication to constitutional violations, errors of law, and whether necessary findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Tidwell v. PA BPP · filed 2015-09-08

Our scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether the adjudication was in accordance with the law, and whether necessary findings were supported by substantial evidence. 2 Pa. C.S. § 704; Smith v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 81 A.3d 1091, 1093 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013).

Section 704 limits review of an agency decision to whether necessary factual findings have substantial evidence, whether the agency committed legal error, and whether constitutional rights were violated.

W.C. Thigpen v. UCBR · filed 2015-09-29

Our scope of review is limited to determining whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether an error of law was committed and whether constitutional rights were violated.

Section 704 limits reversal of a PUC decision to legal error, a constitutional violation, or a necessary factual finding unsupported by substantial evidence.

Coalition for Affordable Utility Services & Energy Efficiency v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission · filed 2015-07-14

This Court’s authority to reverse a decision of the PUC is limited to circumstances where substantial evidence supporting a necessary factual finding is lacking in the record, where the PUC erred as a matter of law, and where constitutional rights were viólated.

Section 704 limits review of a Commission adjudication to whether necessary findings are supported by substantial evidence, an error of law was committed, or constitutional rights were violated.

Kolega v. SCSC (Dept. of Ed.) · filed 2015-10-15

This Court’s scope of review of a Commission adjudication is limited to determining whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether an error of law has been committed or whether constitutional rights have been violated.

Section 704 limits review of an agency decision to constitutional violations, errors of law, and whether necessary factual findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Staab v. UCBR · filed 2015-10-23

Our scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether an error of law was committed and whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits review of an unemployment compensation appeal to errors of law, constitutional violations, and whether necessary findings are supported by substantial evidence.

G. Warren v. UCBR · filed 2015-11-03

In an unemployment compensation appeal, this Court’s scope of review is limited to determining whether an error of law was committed, whether constitutional rights were violated, and whether necessary findings of facts are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits review of an agency adjudication to constitutional violations, errors of law, and whether necessary findings are supported by substantial evidence.

C. E. Duprey, Jr. v. PA BPP · filed 2015-11-03

Our review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether the adjudication was in accordance with law, and whether necessary findings were supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits review of an unemployment compensation appeal to legal errors, constitutional violations, and whether necessary factual findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Life Pittsburgh v. UCBR · filed 2015-11-20

In an unemployment compensation appeal, this Court’s scope of review is limited to determining whether an error of law was committed, whether constitutional rights were violated, or whether necessary findings of facts are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits review of a Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board decision to legal error, substantial evidence for necessary findings, and constitutional violations.

Soto v. WCAB (Price Chopper Operating Co. of PA) · filed 2015-11-24

Our review of an appeal from a determination by the Board is limited to determining whether an error of law was committed, whether the WCJ’s necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence or whether constitutional rights were violated.

Section 704 limits review of an agency decision to whether necessary findings have substantial evidence, an error of law occurred, or constitutional rights were violated.

R.L. Woodworth v. UCBR · filed 2015-12-04

Our scope of review is limited to determining whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether an error of law was committed or whether constitutional rights were violated.

Section 704 limits review of a Board decision to legal error, substantial evidence supporting necessary findings, and procedural or constitutional violations.

Rebuildables Construction, LLC v. WCAB (Clouthier) · filed 2015-12-30

Our review of an appeal from a determination by the Board is limited to determining whether an error of law was committed, whether the WCJ’s necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and whether Board procedures or constitutional rights were violated.

Section 704 limits review of an agency adjudication to constitutional violations, legal error, and whether necessary factual findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Hoousendove v. PA BPP · filed 2016-01-05

Our scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether the adjudication was in accordance with law, or whether the necessary findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits review of an agency adjudication to constitutional violations, legal error, and whether necessary findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Pizarro v. PA BPP · filed 2016-01-13

Our scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether the adjudication was in accordance with the law, and whether necessary findings were supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 requires a court to affirm an agency determination unless it violates constitutional rights, is contrary to law or agency procedure, or lacks substantial evidence for a necessary finding.

Erie Insurance Exchange Ex Rel. Sullivan v. Pennsylvania Insurance Department · filed 2016-01-27

We note that this Court must affirm the Commissioner’s determination unless we find that it violates Petitioners’ constitutional rights, it is not in accordance with law, it violates a practice or procedure of Commonwealth agencies, or a necessary finding of fact is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits review of an unemployment compensation appeal to constitutional violations, errors of law, and whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

Eible v. UCBR · filed 2016-01-29

Our scope of review in an unemployment compensation appeal is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether an error of law was committed, or whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. 2 Pa.C.S. §704; Leace v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 92 A.3d 1272, 1274 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014).

Section 704 limits review of an agency adjudication to constitutional violations, legal error, and whether necessary findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Rivera v. PA BPP · filed 2016-03-10

Our scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether the adjudication was in accordance with the law, and whether necessary findings were supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits judicial review of an agency decision to substantial evidence, errors of law, and constitutional violations; it does not permit the court to reweigh evidence.

Chartiers Community Mental Health & Retardation Center v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review · filed 2016-03-10

Our review of the Board’s decision is limited to determining whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether an error of law was committed or whether constitutional rights were violated. ... This Court’s review of a decision by the Board does not permit it to reweigh the evidence or substitute its own findings for those made by the Board.

Section 704 limits review of an agency decision to legal error, constitutional or procedural violations, and whether substantial evidence supports necessary findings.

D.J. Wyar v. UCBR · filed 2016-03-18

Our scope of review of the Board’s decision is limited to determining whether errors of law were committed, constitutional rights or agency procedures were violated, and necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits review of a Game Commission adjudication to constitutional violations, errors of law, and whether necessary findings are supported by substantial evidence.

D.E. O'Shell v. PA Game Commission · filed 2016-03-21

Our scope of review of the Game Commission’s adjudication is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, an error of law was committed, or whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits review of an agency decision to whether necessary findings are supported by substantial evidence, an error of law was committed, or constitutional rights were violated.

Salhi v. UCBR · filed 2016-05-06

Our scope of review is limited to determining whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether an error of law was committed and whether constitutional rights were violated.

Section 704 limits review of unemployment compensation appeals to legal error, constitutional violations, and whether necessary factual findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Ames v. UCBR · filed 2016-06-03

In an unemployment compensation appeal, this Court’s scope of review is limited to determining whether an error of law was committed, whether constitutional rights were violated, and whether necessary findings of facts are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits review of a Department adjudication to constitutional violations, errors of law, and necessary factual findings unsupported by substantial evidence.

Lil Shining Stars, Inc. v. Dep't of Human Servs. · filed 2016-06-08

Our scope of review in an appeal of an adjudication of the Department is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether an error of law was committed or whether necessary findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 requires appellate courts to affirm agency adjudications when essential findings are supported by substantial evidence and there is no constitutional violation, procedural irregularity, or error of law.

IA Construction Corp. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Rhodes) · filed 2016-05-25

Generally, agency-level decisions -- such as those of the WCJ and WCAB here -- are to be affirmed on appeal so long as the essential findings are supported by substantial evidence and there has been no constitutional violation, procedural irregularity, or error of law.

Section 704 limits review of a Board decision to whether substantial evidence supports it, an error of law occurred, or constitutional rights were violated.

Raible v. PBPP · filed 2016-07-06

Our scope of review is limited to determining whether the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, whether an error of law was committed, or whether ... constitutional rights have been violated. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. §704; Moroz v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 660 A.2d 131, 132 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995).

Section 704 limits judicial review of an agency decision to legal error, violations of constitutional rights or agency procedures, and findings unsupported by substantial evidence.

Casey Ball Supports Coordination, LLC v. UCBR · filed 2016-08-18

Our review is limited to determining whether the Board’s decision is not in accord with the law, whether constitutional rights or agency procedures were violated, and whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 permits review of legal errors in a Board decision referring a matter to the Attorney General.

Trometter v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board · filed 2016-09-08

Although it appears that this Court has not previously reviewed a decision of the Board referring a matter to the Office of Attorney General, we believe our review is limited to considering whether the Board erred as a matter of law or abused its discretion in referring the matter. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. § 704, provides for our review of errors of law.

Section 704 limits review of an agency decision to constitutional violations, errors of law, and whether factual findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Armstrong World Industries v. UCBR · filed 2016-09-15

Our scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights have been violated, whether an error of law has been committed, or whether findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits judicial review to whether factual findings have substantial evidence, whether the agency committed an error of law, or whether constitutional rights were violated.

P. Vargas, Sr. v. WCAB (Pietro Industries, Inc.) · filed 2016-10-14

Our scope of review is limited to determining whether findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether an error of law has been committed, or whether constitutional rights have been violated.

Section 704 limits review of a workers’ compensation decision to whether findings are supported by substantial evidence, an error of law occurred, or constitutional rights were violated.

Simpkins v. WCAB (Human Achievement Project, Inc.) · filed 2016-10-21

This Court’s review is limited to determining whether the WCJ’s findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence, whether an error of law was committed or whether constitutional rights were violated.

Section 704 limits review of agency decisions to errors of law, constitutional violations, and whether substantial evidence supports factual findings.

Kiskadden v. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection · filed 2016-10-26

We begin by noting that our review is limited to determining whether the Board committed an error of law, violated constitutional rights, or whether substantial evidence supports its findings of fact. 2 Pa. C.S. §704; Harvilchuck v. Department of Environmental Protection, 117 A.3d 368, 373 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015).

Section 704 limits review of an agency decision to whether factual findings are supported by substantial evidence, an error of law occurred, or constitutional rights were violated.

Hussey Copper, Ltd. and SWIF v. WCAB (Chiles) · filed 2017-01-19

Our scope of review is limited to determining whether findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether an error of law has been committed, or whether constitutional rights have been violated.

Section 704 limits review of an agency decision to legal errors, constitutional or procedural violations, and whether necessary findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Mallory v. UCBR · filed 2017-02-10

Our scope of review of the Board’s decision is limited to determining whether errors of law were committed, constitutional rights or agency procedures were violated, and necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits review of an agency decision to errors of law, constitutional violations, and whether necessary findings are supported by substantial evidence.

D.A. Punzo v. UCBR · filed 2017-03-01

Our scope of review of the Board’s decision is limited to determining whether an error of law was committed, constitutional rights were violated, or necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 704; Rock v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 6 A.3d 646, 648 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010).

Section 704 limits review of an agency adjudication to constitutional violations, legal error, and findings unsupported by substantial evidence.

A. Fisher v. PA BPP · filed 2017-03-03

Our scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether the adjudication was in accordance with the law, and whether necessary findings were ... supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits review of an agency decision to legal error, constitutional or procedural violations, and whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

Davies-Coleman v. UCBR · filed 2017-04-04

Our scope of review of the Board’s decision is limited to determining whether errors of law were committed, constitutional rights or agency procedures were violated, and necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. ... The Board’s findings here are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits review of a Board decision to legal error, constitutional violations, and whether necessary factual findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Albright Precision, Inc. v. UCBR · filed 2017-04-19

Our scope of review of the Board’s decision is limited to determining whether an error of law was committed, whether constitutional rights were violated, or whether the necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits review of an agency decision to whether findings are supported by substantial evidence, an error of law occurred, or constitutional rights were violated.

County of Northampton v. WCAB (Werkheiser) · filed 2017-05-09

Our scope of review is limited to determining whether Findings of Fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether an error of law has been committed, or whether constitutional rights have been violated.

Section 704 limits review of an agency decision to whether findings have substantial evidence, an error of law occurred, or constitutional rights were violated.

Wilgro Services, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Mentusky) · filed 2017-06-28

Our scope of review is limited to determining whether Findings of Fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether an error of law has been committed, or whether constitutional rights have been violated.

Section 704 requires the court to review whether necessary findings in an agency adjudication are supported by substantial evidence.

W. Schiavo, III v. UCBR · filed 2017-09-01

Our scope of review of the Board’s decision is to determine whether errors of law were committed, constitutional rights were violated, and necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. 2 Pa. C.S. §704; Oyetayo v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 110 A.3d 1117, 1121 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015). ... We reject the argument that the findings of fact challenged by Claimant are not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits review of an unemployment compensation appeal to errors of law, constitutional violations, and whether necessary findings are supported by substantial evidence.

M. Miller v. UCBR · filed 2017-09-20

In an unemployment compensation appeal, this Court’s scope of review is limited to determining whether an error of law was committed, whether constitutional rights were violated, and whether necessary findings of facts are supported by substantial evidence. ... We find that the Referee’s findings, as adopted by the Board, are supported by substantial evidence and as such they are conclusive on appeal.

Section 704 limits review of an agency adjudication to constitutional violations, legal error, and findings unsupported by substantial evidence.

Richards v. UCBR · filed 2017-10-06

Our scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights are violated, whether the adjudication is in accordance with the law and whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits review of an agency decision to whether factual findings have substantial evidence, an error of law occurred, or constitutional rights were violated.

Valenta v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board · filed 2017-12-07

Our scope of review is limited to determining whether Findings of Fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether an error of law has been committed, or whether constitutional rights have been violated. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 704; Meadow Lakes Apartments v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Spencer), 894 A.2d 214, 216 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006).

Section 704 limits review of an agency decision to whether the findings have substantial evidence, the agency committed a legal error, or constitutional rights were violated.

Latimer v. WCAB (Keystone Quality Transport) · filed 2018-01-04

Our scope of review is limited to determining whether findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether an error of law has been committed, or whether constitutional rights have been violated.

Section 704 limits review of a Board order to whether necessary factual findings have substantial evidence and whether the Board made a legal error or violated constitutional rights.

Denaples v. Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board · filed 2018-01-19

Appellate review of a Board order is limited to whether the Board’s necessary findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence and whether the Board erred as a matter of law or violated a party’s constitutional rights. 2 Pa. C.S. §704; Keystone Redevelopment Partners, LLC v. Pa. Gaming Control Bd., 5 A.3d 448 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010).

Section 704 limits review of a Board decision to whether necessary findings are supported by substantial evidence, an error of law was committed, or constitutional rights were violated.

Turek v. UCBR · filed 2018-02-06

Our review of the Board’s decision is limited to determining whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether an error of law was committed or whether constitutional rights were violated.

Section 704 limits appellate review to constitutional violations, errors of law, and whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

E.A. Snyder, Jr. v. UCBR · filed 2018-02-08

Our scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether an error of law was committed, and whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. §704; Kirkwood v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 525 A.2d 841, 843-44 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987).

Section 704 limits review of an agency adjudication to errors of law, constitutional violations, and whether necessary findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Randy & Dayleen v. Dept. of Health · filed 2018-05-10

Our review is limited to determining whether an error of law was committed, whether constitutional rights were violated or whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. ... Additionally, our review of the record reveals that the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the findings are conclusive and binding on this Court.

Section 704 limits review of an agency adjudication to legal errors, constitutional violations, and necessary findings unsupported by substantial evidence; it does not permit the court to reweigh mitigating evidence.

Williams v. BPOA, State Real Estate Comm. · filed 2021-10-14

This Court’s scope of review is limited to determining whether an error of law was committed, whether constitutional rights were violated, or whether necessary findings of fact were unsupported by substantial evidence. ... In short, Petitioner invites this Court to exceed its limited standard of review. We decline this invitation.

Section 704 limits review of agency decisions to whether findings have substantial evidence, an error of law occurred, or constitutional rights were violated.

E.J. Stanis v. WCAB (Brand Energy Services, Inc.) · filed 2022-05-23

Our scope of review is limited to determining whether findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether an error of law has been committed, or whether constitutional rights have been violated. ... In turn, the testimony of Lewandowski and Frey, as well as that of other witnesses, constituted substantial evidence to support the WCJ’s finding and determination that Claimant did not sustain a work-related injury.

Section 704 does not authorize an appellate court to substitute its judgment for an agency’s exercise of discretion.

Abdul-Salaam v. PPB · filed 2023-01-31

Nevertheless, it is not within this Court’s function or authority to substitute our judgment for that of the Board in the exercise of its discretion. See 2 Pa.C.S. § 704; Harden v. Pa. Bd. of ... Prob. & Parole, 980 A.2d 691, 701-02 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (citing Cox v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 493 A.2d 680, 683 (Pa. 1985)).

Section 704 directs courts reviewing agency decisions to consider constitutional violations, errors of law, and whether factual findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Watkins v. PPB · filed 2023-08-15

We review the Board’s decision to determine whether constitutional rights were violated, whether an error of law was committed, and whether the Board’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. ... As such, substantial evidence supports the Board’s findings that Watkins violated the terms of his parole.

Section 704 limits review of a Board decision to constitutional violations, legal errors, and findings unsupported by substantial evidence; absent a due process claim, the speed of a referee’s decision is outside that review.

J.M. Scheib v. UCBR · filed 2025-01-08

Our review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether an error of law was committed, or whether the necessary factual findings are supported by substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. § 704; Devine v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 101 A.3d 1235, 1237 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014). ... First, the rapidity with which a Referee decides an appeal after receiving testimony is not a question within the scope of our review of a Board determination, chiefly because Claimant has not argued that the timing of the Referee’s decision constituted a deprivation of constitutional due process.

Section 704 limits review of Commonwealth agency decisions to facts in the certified agency record.

Burda v. DHS · filed 2025-03-12

When reviewing decisions by a Commonwealth agency, this Court may only consider facts found in a record certified by the respective agency.

Section 704 limits review of agency adjudications to whether they have adequate factual support, avoid arbitrary or capricious decisions, and properly exercise agency discretion.

Teitelbaum, R. v. PGCB, Aplt. · filed 2025-03-20

This Court returned to the “not in accordance with law” element of Section 704 review in Fraternal Order of Police v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, in which we noted that the “standard has been described in a number of ways,” but that its “essential import is to establish limited appellate review of agency conclusions to ensure that they are adequately supported by competent factual findings, are free from arbitrary or capricious decision making, and, to the extent relevant, represent a proper exercise of the agency’s discretion.”

Section 704 permits a court to reverse an agency adjudication for arbitrary or capricious decision making or an improper exercise of agency discretion.

Lendell Gaming, LLC v. PGCB, Aplt. · filed 2025-03-20

This Court returned to the “not in accordance with law” element of Section 704 review in Fraternal Order of Police v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, in which we noted that the “standard has been described in a number of ways,” but that its “essential import is to establish limited appellate review of agency conclusions to ensure that they are adequately supported by competent factual findings, are free from arbitrary or capricious decision making, and, to the extent relevant, represent a proper exercise of the agency’s discretion.”

Section 704 permits a court to reverse an agency adjudication that is arbitrary or capricious or reflects an improper exercise of agency discretion.

Better Bets Ventures, LLC v. PGCB, Aplt. · filed 2025-03-20

This Court returned to the “not in accordance with law” element of Section 704 review in Fraternal Order of Police v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, in which we noted that the “standard has been described in a number of ways,” but that its “essential import is to establish limited appellate review of agency conclusions to ensure that they are adequately supported by competent factual findings, are free from arbitrary or capricious decision making, and, to the extent relevant, represent a proper exercise of the agency’s discretion.”

Section 704 limits review when the common pleas court is the fact finder to substantial evidence, errors of law, and violations of the appellant’s constitutional rights.

Smith v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation · filed 1986-01-07

Our scope of review where the common pleas court is ■the fact-finder, is limited to determining whether necessary findings of that court are based upon substantial evidence, an error of law committed, or whether any constitutional rights of the appellant were violated.

Section 704 limits review of an agency decision to constitutional violations, errors of law, and whether factual findings are supported by substantial evidence, regardless of which party prevailed before the agency.

Commonwealth v. Sanders · filed 1986-12-11

Our state Supreme Court has now held, however, that under Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C. S. §704, the scope of review on appeal regardless of which party prevailed below is limited to determining whether there has been a constitutional violation or an error of law and whether the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. ... The Commission, however, is the sole fact-finder and determiner of credibility, West Chester State College v. Stein, 72 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 561, 457 A.2d 176 (1983), and where, as in the instant case, its findings are substantially supported it does not commit error merely by resolving testimonial conflicts in favor of one party; on the contrary, this is its proper role as the fact finding body.

Section 704 limits review of an administrative agency decision to constitutional violations, errors of law, and whether substantial evidence supports the findings, regardless of which party prevailed.

Werner v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1986-12-12

However, our Supreme Court has recently held that the scope of review of an administrative agency decision, regardless of which party prevails, is limited by Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. §704, to determining whether constitutional rights have been violated, an error of law committed, or whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the findings of fact.

Section 704 requires an appellate court to affirm agency fact findings supported by substantial evidence.

Kraushaar v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1991-08-19

Our scope of review is limited to determining whether an error of law was committed or constitutional rights were violated, and whether all necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. ... Upon examination of Dr. Balk’s entire testimony, we find that it expresses the unequivocality required to be competent evidence and that it constitutes substantial evidence in support of the referee’s findings.

Section 704 permits a court to assess whether an agency decision accords with law by asking whether the agency manifestly and flagrantly abused its discretion or acted purely arbitrarily.

Miller v. Commonwealth Department of Education · filed 2000-05-22

Our scope of review in this case is limited to the determination of whether there has been a manifest and flagrant abuse of discretion in the execution of the Department's duties or functions. Although the "abuse of discretion” scope of review is not expressly provided for in Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 704, which provides that an agency action shall be affirmed unless it violates any of the enumerated requirements, our Supreme Court has held that the requirement that an agency’s decision be in accordance with the law is satisfied by determining whether there has been a manifest and flagrant abuse of discretion or a purely arbitrary execution of the agency’s duties or functions.

Section 704 limits appellate review to whether necessary factual findings have substantial evidence and whether the trial judge committed constitutional violations or errors of law.

Kiebort v. COM., DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION · filed 2001-06-11

Our review is limited to determining whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and whether the trial judge committed constitutional violations or errors of law.

Section 704 limits judicial review of agency adjudications to constitutional, legal, procedural, and substantial-evidence errors; capricious disregard falls within those existing grounds of review.

Hinkle v. City of Philadelphia · filed 2005-08-17

Under this scope of review, the General Assembly has only allowed courts to substitute their discretion for that of the agency where there is a violation of a constitutional right, where the decision is not in accordance with the law, or it is in violation of procedural rights guaranteed by the Administrative Agency Law, and where there is no substantial evidence to support the agency decision. Any review of an agency decision must fall within one of those areas.