2 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 704

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

Caldarelli v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1988-05-04

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that, under section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C. S. §704, our scope of review of a decision of an administrative agency, such as the Workmens Compensation Appeal Board, is limited to determining whether there has been a constitutional violation or an error of law or whether the necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 does not require de novo review merely because the evidence before an agency conflicts.

Bethlehem Mines Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1986-06-11

It first argues that the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C. S. §704 requires this Court, in effect, to exercise de novo review in cases where conflicting evidence exists. This argument has been made in the past and rejected by this Court.

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

D. P. "Herk" Zimmerman, Jr., Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Himes) · filed 1987-01-08

Our scope of review is limited to a determination of whether constitutional rights were violated, an error of law was committed, or whether necessary findings of feet are supported by substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C. S. §704; Estate of McGovern v. State Employees’ Retirement Board, 512 Pa. 377, 517 A.2d 523 (1986).

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

Thomas v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1987-03-05

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

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

Polenz v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1987-03-24

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

Section 704 requires a court to affirm an agency adjudication unless it violates constitutional rights, conflicts with law, or has findings unsupported by substantial evidence.

Textron, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1987-04-14

Our scope of review under Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C. S. §704, requires that we affirm the adjudication of the Board unless we find that this adjudication is in violation of the constitutional rights of the employer, or is not in accordance with the law, or that any findings of fact are not supported by ... substantial evidence.

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

Pypers v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1987-04-24

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

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

Felmont Oil Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1987-05-06

Our scope of review is limited to a determination of 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 appellate review to constitutional violations, errors of law, and whether the referee’s findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Artman v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1987-07-13

Our scope of review is limited to a determination of whether constitutional rights have been violated, an error of law was committed, or whether the findings of the referee were based upon substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C. S. §704; Estate of McGovern v. State Employees Retirement Board, 512 Pa. 377, 517 A.2d 523, 525 (1986).

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

Boeing Vertol Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1987-07-15

This Court's scope of review is limited to a determination of 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 agency decisions to constitutional violations, errors of law, and whether factual findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Buckley v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1987-08-31

Claimant presents four issues for our consideration and we shall examine them keeping in mind that our scope of review is limited to determining whether there has been a constitutional violation or an error of law, or whether the 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 findings are supported by substantial competent evidence.

D'Agostino v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1987-09-04

Our scope of review, of course, is limited to a determination of whether constitutional rights have been violated, an error of law committed, or whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial competent evidence.

Section 704 limits appellate review to errors of law and findings of fact unsupported by substantial evidence.

Roadway Express, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1987-10-29

Our scope of review is limited to determining whether there was an error of law or whether a finding of fact was unsupported by substantial evidence.

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

Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1987-11-18

Our scope of review herein is limited to a determination of whether constitutional rights have been violated, an error of law has been committed, or whether necessary findings of feet 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.

McConnell v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1987-12-08

Our scope of review is limited to a determination of 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 administrative agency decision to constitutional violations, errors of law, and whether necessary findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Vital Signs Institute, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1988-03-01

Our scope of review of an administrative agency decision is to determine whether there has been a constitutional violation or an error of law and whether the necessary findings of feet are supported by substantial evidence.

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

Mrs. Smith's Frozen Foods Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1988-03-14

We are cognizant that when petitioned to review a decision of the Board we are limited to a determination of whether constitutional rights were violated, an error of law was committed or whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C. S. §704; Estate of McGovern v. State Employees’ Retirement Board, 512 Pa. 377, 517 A.2d 523 (1986).

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

Miller v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1988-03-15

In reviewing a decision of the Board, our scope of review is limited to a determination of whether constitutional rights have been violated, an error of law was committed or whether necessary findings of feet are supported by substantial evidence.

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

Pecht v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1988-03-17

Initially we note that when petitioned to review a decision of the Board, our scope of review is limited to a determination of whether constitutional rights were violated, an error of law was committed or 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, 106 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 92, 525 A.2d 841 (1987).

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

Blue Bell Printing v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1988-04-05

Initially we note that in reviewing a decision of the Board, our scope of review is a narrow one, limited to a determination of whether there has been a constitutional violation, or an error of law and whether the necessary findings of facts are supported by substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C. S. §704; Kirkwood v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 106 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 92, 525 A.2d 841 (1987).

Section 704 limits review, when the Board takes no additional testimony, to whether the referee’s findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether an error of law occurred.

Elinsky v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1988-05-06

In a workmens compensation case, where no additional testimony is taken by the Board, questions of credibility are the sole province of the referee, and our scope of review is simply to see whether the referees findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and whether an error of law was committed.

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

Maurer v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1988-05-18

Our scope of review herein 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.

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

Swartz v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1988-06-09

When petitioned to review a decision of the Board, we are limited in our review to a determination of whether constitutional rights have been violated, an error of law committed or whether any necessary findings of feet are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits review of a workers’ compensation decision to constitutional violations, errors of law, and whether necessary factual findings have substantial evidence.

City of Harrisburg v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1988-07-19

This Courts scope of review in a workers’ compensation case is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated; an error of law was committed; or necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits judicial review in a workmen’s compensation case to constitutional violations, errors of law, and whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

Mengel v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1988-08-16

Review by this Court, in a workmen’s compensation case, is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, an error of law was committed, or necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

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

Ruvo v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1988-08-23

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

When no constitutional issue is raised, Section 704 directs the court to review whether the referee’s findings have substantial evidence and whether an error of law was committed.

NUS Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1988-09-13

Since no constitutional issues were raised, our scope of review is to determine whether the referee’s findings are supported by substantial evidence or. whether an error of law was committed. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C. S. §704; Estate of McGovern v. State Employees’ Retirement Board, 512 Pa. 377, 517 A.2d 523 (1986).

Section 704 directs a court reviewing an agency decision to examine whether factual findings have substantial evidence and whether a constitutional violation or legal error occurred.

Papa v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1988-11-07

Our scope of review where evidence has been presented by both employee and employer is to determine whether the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and whether there has been a constitutional violation or an error of law.

Section 704 limits review in workmens compensation cases to constitutional violations, errors of law, and whether necessary factual findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Lomax v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1988-11-30

Initially we note that our scope of review in workmens compensation cases is confined to a determination of whether there has been a constitutional violation or an error of law and whether the necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C. S. §704; see Blue Bell Printing v. Workmens Compensation Appeal Board (Montgomery Publishing Co.), 115 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 203, 539 A.2d 933 (1988).

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

Chestnut Hill Hospital v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1988-12-27

In reviewing the Boards decision herein our scope of review is a narrow one in that we are confined to a determination of whether there has been a constitutional violation, or an error of law and whether the necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

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

City of Scranton v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1989-02-02

In reviewing the Board’s decision herein our scope of review is confined to a determination of whether there has been a constitutional violation or an error of law and whether the necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C. S. §704; see Blue Bell Printing v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Montgomery Publishing Co.), 115 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 203, 539 A.2d 933 (1988).

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

Good Shepherd Workshop v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1989-03-17

Our scope of review of a decision of the board is limited to determining whether there has been a constitutional violation or an error of law and whether the 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.

Stuck Leasing Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1989-04-18

Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C. S. §704 limits our scope of review to a determination of whether constitutional rights have been violated, an error of law committed 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 findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

Bethlehem Mines Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1989-05-02

Our scope of review is limited to determining whether there has been a constitutional violation or an error of law and whether the necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

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

City of Scranton v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1989-06-26

In reviewing the Board’s decision, we are mindful that our scope of review is a narrow one in that we are confined to a determination of whether there has been a violation of constitutional rights or an error of law and whether the necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 704; see Blue Bell Printing v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Montgomery Publishing Co.), 115 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 203, 539 A.2d 933 (1988).

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

Williams v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1989-08-04

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

Section 704 limits review of the Board’s decisions to constitutional violations, errors of law, and findings unsupported by substantial evidence.

Pennsylvania Power Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1989-10-19

Our scope in reviewing the Board’s determination is limited to whether constitutional rights have been violated, errors of law were committed, or findings of fact were unsupported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 requires appellate courts to review agency decisions for substantial evidence supporting necessary findings, constitutional violations, and errors of law.

USX Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1990-06-07

This standard is set forth in Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 704, and requires that we determine whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and whether there has been a constitutional violation or error of law.

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

Brown v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1990-07-12

Our scope of review is narrow: we must affirm unless we determine that there has been a violation of constitutional rights, an error of law, or that necessary factual findings are not supported by substantial competent evidence.

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

Berardelli v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1990-08-17

Our scope of review is limited, as was the Board’s, to a determination of whether a violation of constitutional rights occurred, an error of law was committed, or whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. ... As the referee’s finding of an abnormal work condition is not supported by substantial competent evidence, that finding was properly rejected by the Board.

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

Borough of Media v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1990-08-30

This Court’s scope of review is limited to a determination of whether a violation of constitutional rights occurred, an error of law was committed, or whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 permits review of whether an agency’s findings have substantial evidence, whether it committed an error of law, or whether constitutional rights were violated.

Siano v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1991-02-05

Our scope of review is to determine whether the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether an error of law has been committed, or whether claimant’s constitutional rights have been violated.

Section 704 directs appellate review of agency decisions for constitutional violations, legal errors, and lack of substantial evidence.

Temple University v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1991-03-08

Because claimant, who had the burden of proof, prevailed before the referee and the board took no additional evidence, our scope of review on appeal is to determine if there has been a violation of constitutional rights, errors of law or a decision based on a lack of substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits review of a Board order to constitutional violations, errors of law, and whether necessary findings of fact have substantial support in the record.

Chichester School District v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1991-05-31

Our scope of review of an order of the Board is to determine whether constitutional rights were violated or an error of law was committed and whether the necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 704; Russell v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Volkswagen of America), 121 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 436, 550 A.2d 1364 (1988).

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

Shustack v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1991-07-18

Our scope of review is limited to a determination of whether a violation of constitutional rights occurred, an error of law was committed, or whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

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

Nabisco v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1992-06-03

Our scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights have been violated, whether an error of law was committed or whether any finding of fact necessary to support the decision is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 requires a reviewing court to assess whether substantial evidence supports an agency's findings of fact, without reweighing the evidence for reasonableness.

Bethenergy Mines, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1992-06-17

The Administrative Agency Law, which governs appeals taken by persons aggrieved by agency adjudications, provides that a reviewing court "shall affirm the adjudication unless it shall find that . . . any finding of fact made by the agency and necessary to support its adjudication is not supported by substantial evidence." 2 Pa.C.S. § 704. Clearly, the reviewing court is not directed to inquire into the reasonableness of the agency's adjudication, but rather to determine only whether it was supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits review of an agency adjudication to constitutional violations, errors of law, and necessary findings unsupported by substantial evidence when the party with the burden of proof prevailed before the referee and the agency took no additional evidence.

Lukens Steel Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1992-07-08

Where the party with the burden of proof prevailed before the referee, and the WCAB has taken no additional evidence, our review is limited to a determination of whether constitutional rights have been violated, errors of law have been committed or necessary findings of fact were unsupported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits review of a Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board decision to constitutional violations, legal errors, and necessary factual findings unsupported by substantial evidence.

B.P. Oil Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1992-08-05

Our scope of review of a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, an error of law was committed or necessary findings of fact were not supported by substantial evidence.

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

Abington Memorial Hospital v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1992-10-23

Our scope of review of a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, an error of law was committed or necessary findings of fact were not supported by substantial evidence.

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

City of Harrisburg v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1992-11-19

The Commonwealth Court properly limited its scope of review on appeal from a decision of an administrative agency to a determination of whether constitutional rights have been violated, an error of law has been committed or any findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence.

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

Gateway Coal Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1993-03-31

This court's scope of review is limited to determining if constitutional rights have been violated, an error of law has been made, or necessary findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence.

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

Republic Seafood, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1993-03-31

We are limited in our review of a decision by the Board to determining whether there were constitutional violations or errors of law or whether the necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence in the record.

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

Antus v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1993-09-21

Our scope of review is limited to determining violations of constitutional rights, errors of law, violations of agency practice and procedure and whether findings of fact are unsupported by substantial evidence.

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

Chicoine v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1993-10-27

Our scope of review is limited to determining if any party's constitutional rights were violated, if any errors of law were committed and ascertaining that all necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

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

Strattan Homes, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1993-11-04

This court’s scope of review is limited to determining if constitutional rights have been violated, an error of law has been made, or necessary findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence.

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

Wellsville Terminals Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1993-11-16

Our scope of review in this matter is limited to determining whether there has been a constitutional violation, or an error of law, or a violation of Board procedure, and whether the necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. 2 Pa.C.S.A. § 704; Pieper v. Ametek-Thermox Instruments, 526 Pa. 25, 584 A.2d 301 (1990).

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

Municipality of Bethel Park v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1994-01-07

Our scope of review is limited by Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 704, to determining whether the findings of fact are supported with substantial evidence, whether the Board made an error of law, or whether the Employer’s constitutional rights were violated.

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

Armco, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1994-09-01

In reviewing a decision of the Board, our scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, an error of law was committed, or a necessary finding of fact is unsupported by substantial evidence.

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

McCray v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1994-09-14

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

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

Keiter v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1995-02-07

This Court’s scope of review in appeals from administrative agencies, as dictated by Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 704, 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 judicial review to errors of law, constitutional violations, and whether necessary factual findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Walker v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1995-03-10

Our scope of review 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 a Board order to constitutional violations, errors of law, and whether necessary factual findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Lamborn v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1995-03-21

On appeal, our standard of review of a Board order is limited to determining whether there has been a constitutional violation or an error of law or whether the 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 findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Myers v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1995-04-05

Our scope of review is limited to a determination of whether constitutional rights were violated, an error of law was committed or whether the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. 2 Pa.C.S. § 704; Estate of McGovern v. State Employees’ Retirement Board, 512 Pa. 377, 517 A.2d 523 (1986).

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

Roadway Express, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1995-05-11

Our scope of review 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 decision to constitutional violations, errors of law, and whether necessary findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Lathilleurie v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1995-06-15

Of course, the scope of our review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights have been violated, an error of law committed, or whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

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

Schneider, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1995-08-29

On appeal, our standard of review of a Board order is limited to determining whether there has been a constitutional violation, or an error of law, or whether the necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 704; Estate of McGovern v. State Employees’ Retirement Board, 512 Pa. 377, 517 A.2d 523 (1986).

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

Crowell v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1995-09-15

Our scope of review 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 appellate review of agency decisions to errors of law, constitutional violations, and whether necessary factual findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Hastings v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1995-11-16

Our scope of review 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 decision to constitutional violations, errors of law, and whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

Terek v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1995-12-06

Commonwealth Court correctly set forth its scope of review as being limited to determining whether constitutional rights have been violated, an error of law has been committed, or 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 factual findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Thomas v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1996-02-16

Our scope of review 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 agency decisions to errors of law, constitutional violations, and whether necessary factual findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Martinez v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1996-05-21

Our scope of review 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 to errors of law, constitutional violations, and whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

Grimes v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1996-07-11

Our 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 made by the WCJ are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits review of a workers’ compensation board decision to legal error, constitutional violations, and whether necessary findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Ball Incon Glass Packaging v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1996-08-29

Our 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 are supported by substantial evidence.

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

Varghese v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1996-09-13

Our 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 are supported by substantial evidence.

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

City of Wilkes-Barre v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1996-09-25

Our 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 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.

Benson v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1996-12-04

Our scope of review 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 agency decisions to constitutional violations, errors of law, and whether necessary factual findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Tatano v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1997-07-01

Our scope of review 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 appellate review to errors of law, constitutional violations, and whether necessary factual findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1998-04-06

Our 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 are supported by substantial evidence.

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

Palmer v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1998-04-13

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

Section 704 limits review of workers’ compensation decisions to errors of law, constitutional violations, and whether necessary findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Ruth Family Medical Center v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1998-09-24

Our scope of review in workers' compensation decisions 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 appellate review, where both parties presented evidence, to whether necessary findings have substantial evidence, whether the tribunal committed legal error, and whether constitutional rights were violated.

Curtis v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1999-04-07

Where both parties have presented evidence, as in this case, the appellate court’s review on appeal is limited to determining whether the necessary findings of the WCJ are supported by substantial evidence of record, whether an error of law was committed or whether constitutional rights were violated.

Section 704 requires substantial evidence review when both parties present evidence; when only the party with the burden of proof presents evidence and loses, the reviewing court first assesses whether that evidence was legally sufficient.

Kirkwood v. UN. COMP. BD. OF REV. · filed 1987-05-12

In summary then, if both parties below have presented evidence, there is no question that our proper scope of review, regardless of which party has the burden of proof, is the substantial evidence test set out in Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law and reaffirmed by our Supreme Court in Estate of McGovern. Where, however, the party with the burden of proof is the only party to present evidence, and that party does not prevail before the agency, we must first examine the record to determine whether that party as a matter of law, has met his burden. If he has not, we will affirm the agency decision.

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

Globe Lining, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1988-11-10

We shall examine these issues seriatim keeping in mind that our scope of review where both parties have presented evidence is limited to determining whether there has been a constitutional violation or an error of law and whether the 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, 106 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 92, 525 A.2d 841 (1987).

Section 704 limits review of an agency decision, in this posture, to constitutional violations, errors of law, and whether factual findings have substantial evidence.

Tedesco Manufacturing Co. v. Commonwealth · filed 1989-01-11

Therefore, our scope of review of the Boards decision where the burdened party prevails below and is the only party to submit evidence 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.

Section 704 limits review, when both parties have presented evidence, to whether findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether there was a constitutional violation or an error of law.

Ortell v. Commonwealth · filed 1989-01-12

Where, as here, both parties have presented evidence our scope of review is limited to determining whether the necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and whether there has been a constitutional violation or an error of law.

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

Nagle v. Commonwealth · filed 1980-01-04

Our scope of review on appeals from final determinations of the Commissioner is prescribed by statute and case law. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. §704, provides general guidelines : ... After hearing, the court shall affirm the adjudication unless it shall find that the adjudication is in violation of the constitutional rights of the appellant, or is not in accordance with law, or that the provisions of Subchapter A of Chapter 5 (relating to practice and procedure of Commonwealth agencies) have been violated in the proceedings before the agency, 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 unemployment compensation decisions to substantial evidence, errors of law, compliance with administrative procedure, and constitutional violations.

Sauer v. UN. COMP. BD. OF REV. · filed 1987-10-06

Of course, our scope of review in unemployment compensation appeals is limited by Section 704 of the Administrative Agency ... Law, 2 Pa. C. S. §704, to determining whether necessary findings are supported by substantial evidence, an error of law committed, whether the procedural provisions of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C. S. §§501-508, have been complied with, or whether any constitutional rights of the claimant have been violated.

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

Eddy v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review · filed 1987-11-10

Our scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights or the provisions of 2 Pa. C. S. §§501-508 have been violated, an error of law has been committed, or whether the agency’s findings of feet are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 directs a reviewing court to affirm an agency adjudication unless it finds a constitutional violation, legal or procedural error, or a necessary finding unsupported by substantial evidence.

Children & Youth Services v. Commonwealth, Department of Public Welfare · filed 1987-12-04

We will now review DPWs decision in accordance with our scope of review enunciated in Section 704 of the Law, 2 Pa. C. S. §704. ... As we conclude that the examiners findings are supported by substantial evidence, and finding no error of law or constitutional violation, we will affirm the order of the Office of Hearings and Appeals adopting Examiner Parse’s recommendation to sustain B.T.’s appeal.

Section 704 limits review of State Civil Service Commission decisions to constitutional or statutory procedural violations, legal errors, and findings unsupported by substantial evidence.

Keim v. Commonwealth, Department of Health · filed 1988-07-05

Our scope of review over decisions of the State Civil Service Commission is limited to determining whether constitutional rights or the provisions of 2 Pa. C. S. §§501-508 have been violated, an error of law has been committed, and whether the Commissions essential findings of fact are unsupported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits judicial review to constitutional violations, violations of specified procedural provisions, errors of law, and essential findings unsupported by substantial evidence.

BK Foods, Inc. v. Commonwealth · filed 1988-09-23

Our scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights or the provisions of 2 Pa. C. S. §§501-508 have been violated, an error of law has been committed, and whether the Boards essential findings of fact are unsupported by substantial evidence. 2 Pa. C. S. §704; Kirkwood v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 106 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 92, 525 A.2d 841 (1987).

Section 704 permits reversal of an agency adjudication for arbitrary or capricious decision making under its “not in accordance with law” standard.

Brozzetti, M. 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.” ... We agree with the Commonwealth Court that the Board’s licensing decision in the instant case falls below this standard.

Section 704 requires a court to set aside an agency order when findings necessary to support it lack substantial evidence.

Hughes v. Commonwealth · filed 1980-05-20

If the Board makes findings of fact necessary to support its adjudication which are not supported by substantial evidence, we must set aside the Board’s order. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. §704, We find that the Board erred in determining that work was available to Claimant during the weeks ending October 8 and 15.

Section 704 requires substantial evidence to support an agency’s factual findings on review.

Rolland v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review · filed 1980-08-26

The claimant contends that this Court should reverse the order of the Board in the case at hand because there is not substantial competent evidence, as required by Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. §704, to support a finding of such control as is required under Starinieri, supra. ... We also believe that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s finding that the claimant exercised a substantial degree of control over the corporation.

Section 704 requires a court reviewing an agency adjudication to determine whether substantial evidence supports it.

St. John's General Hospital v. Commonwealth · filed 1981-02-10

Our scope of review in this case is limited by Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C. S. §704, to a determination of whether or not the adjudication by the DPW was supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 permits a court to reverse an agency adjudication when a necessary finding of fact lacks substantial evidence.

Barnes v. Commonwealth · filed 1982-11-17

It is well settled that in an appeal from an agency adjudication under provisions of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C. S. §704, such adjudication will be affirmed unless it is not in accord with the law or unless a necessary finding of fact is unsupported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 requires an agency finding to be supported by substantial evidence.

Pennsylvania Pub. Util. v. Phil. Elec. · filed 1983-05-27

We find that the record amply supports the PUC's determination, the finding of financial infeasibility being supported by substantial evidence. See 2 Pa.C.S.A. § 704 (substantial evidence required).

Section 704 requires a court to affirm an agency order supported by substantial evidence even if the court would weigh the evidence differently.

Cohen v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission · filed 1983-08-15

The PUC found the evidence favoring normalization to be more persuasive. Even where the independent judgment of this Court would be to the contrary, we would not disturb the decision of the PUC. ... The Order of the PUC is amply supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 704 requires sufficient competent evidence in the record to support an agency’s findings.

George v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review · filed 1981-03-18

Before this Court claimant alleges that there was not sufficient competent evidence in the record, as required by Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C. S. §704, to support the Board’s conclusion that he had exercised a substantial degree of control over Scuro, and that he is therefore entitled to benefits as an unemployed “worker.” We agree.

Section 704 requires a reviewing court to assess whether the Board’s necessary findings are supported by substantial evidence.

McCauley v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole · filed 1986-06-06

We have previously defined “substantial evidence” to be such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, requiring something more than a scintilla creating a mere suspicion of the existence of the feet to be established. ... Having found that the Boards findings are supported by substantial evidence, we must affirm the Boards order.

Section 704 requires substantial evidence to support a Commonwealth agency adjudication, but a regulatory presumption may simplify proof without relieving the agency of its burden to establish the charge.

Worthington v. Dept. of Agriculture · filed 1986-08-29

Mr. Worthington recognizes the pertinence of Section 163.315 but contends that such a rule, placing an affirmative burden of proof on the alleged violator, contradicts Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C. S. §704, which requires an adjudication of a Commonwealth agency to be supported by substantial evidence. Mr. Worthington asserts that the Commission should be shouldered with the burden of affirmatively establishing every element of the charge. Contrary to Mr. Worthington's argument, the Commission has not been relieved of its burden to establish the elements of the charge. The import of the regulation, in our view, is to simplify the Commission's burden by eliminating the necessity for the attendance at the hearing of every person involved in the procurement and the actual testing of the sample.

Section 704 permits a court to disturb an agency’s factual finding when it is not supported by substantial evidence.

Gregory v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole · filed 1987-09-11

Since a finding as to whether a parolee acted in violation of the terms or conditions of parole is in most cases purely factual, this court will only disturb such a Board finding if it is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 limits review of an agency decision to specified grounds, including whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

Moore v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1987-12-01

Therefore, because the referee’s findings of fact numbers 6 and 7 are not supported by substantial evidence, we strike those findings.

Section 704 permits reversal of an agency decision when its findings are not supported by substantial evidence.

McKinney v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review · filed 1988-06-17

Pursuant to Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C. S. §704, our ... scope of review is limited to determining whether there has been a violation of constitutional rights, an error of law has been committed, or whether the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. ... We agree that the Board erred in finding that there was substantial evidence to support a conclusion of willful misconduct.

Section 704 requires a reviewing court to affirm findings of fact supported by substantial evidence; the court examines the whole record for such evidence without re-weighing testimony.

Bethenergy Mines, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1990-03-29

In McGovern v. State Employes’ Retirement Board, 512 Pa. 377, 517 A.2d 523 (1986), the supreme court held that this court’s scope of review regarding findings of fact is governed by the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 704 which requires this court to affirm a finding of fact unless the finding is not supported by substantial evidence. ... Under the Shinsky definition of substantial evidence, this court is not to weigh evidence but is merely to determine whether the whole record contains evidence which a reasonable person might find sufficient to support the referee’s findings. ... Accordingly, we decline to engage in re-weighing of testimony as proposed in Employers’ “whole record/substantial evidence review.”

Section 704 requires a reviewing court to affirm agency findings of fact supported by substantial evidence.

Mormak v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review · filed 1990-09-20

We must affirm UCBR’s findings of fact if they are supported by substantial evidence. 2 Pa.C.S. § 704; ... We hold that UCBR’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and its legal conclusions are not clearly erroneous.

Section 704 permits a court to vacate an agency decision when a necessary finding of fact lacks substantial evidence in the record.

Cromie v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1991-12-04

Our scope of review of a decision of the Board is to determine whether there were constitutional violations or errors of law and whether the necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 704; ... Therefore, the referee’s finding that the initial injury was a “lumbosacral sprain” is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 704 requires appellate courts to uphold an agency’s factual findings when substantial evidence supports them.

Indiana Borough v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board · filed 1997-06-04

For purposes of appellate review over an agency’s factual determinations under 2 Pa.C.S. § 704, substantial evidence has been defined as “such evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a finding.” ... The foregoing evidence offered at the hearing provides substantial evidence to support the PLRB’s finding that the Borough had a steady shift system in effect during the years in question; as such, this finding is conclusive on appeal.

Section 704 requires a court to affirm an agency adjudication unless, among other grounds, a necessary factual finding lacks substantial evidence.

Miller v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board · filed 2003-01-31

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 ... any necessary finding of fact is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 704 requires a reviewing court to affirm an agency adjudication unless a factual finding necessary to it lacks substantial evidence.

Tanya J. McCloskey, Acting Consumer Advocate v. PA PUC · filed 2015-12-18

Additionally, this Court is satisfied that the Commission did not violate Section 704 of the Administrative Law and Procedure, 2 Pa. C.S. § 704, which relevantly provides that “[a]fter hearing, the court shall affirm the adjudication unless it shall find that . . . that any finding of fact made by the agency and necessary to support its adjudication is not supported by substantial evidence.”

Section 704 requires substantial evidence to support agency findings of fact; a WCJ’s unsupported lay medical opinions do not satisfy that requirement.

Brian Temme Tree Service & SWIF v. J. Ecott (WCAB) · filed 2022-05-10

Because findings of fact rooted in merely a WCJ’s lay opinion on medical issues are not supported by “substantial evidence” as required by 2 Pa.C.S. § 704, we reverse the decision of the Board.

Section 704 directs a reviewing court to affirm an agency adjudication when its necessary factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and no other ground for reversal applies.

Schmukler v. PA PUC · filed 2023-09-06

This Court discerns no error in the Commission’s conclusion. Accordingly, the Commission’s determination was within its administrative ... discretion and is supported by substantial evidence in accordance with Section 704 of the Law.

Section 704 allows a reviewing court to reject an agency’s legal conclusion even when it accepts the agency’s factual findings.

Strinich v. Clairton School District · filed 1981-07-02

As previously stated, we find the Commonwealth Court clearly had the authority to decide that the facts as given to the Secretary compelled the court to reach a different legal conclusion from that reached by the Secretary. If the result were otherwise, the Commonwealth Court would be limited to determining whether appellant’s constitutional rights had been violated, whether the agency’s procedures had been violated or whether the findings of fact were supported by the record. Such a reading of 2 Pa.C. S.A. § 704 would effectively excise the language “or not in accordance with law” contained in the statute.

Section 704 permits limited review of agency conclusions to determine whether they have adequate factual support, are free from arbitrary or capricious decision making, and reflect a proper exercise of discretion.

Fraternal Order of Police v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board · filed 1999-07-22

The circumstances present in McGovern, however, did not require embellishment upon the requirement of Section' 704 of the Administrative Agency law that appellate courts review agencies’ conclusions to determine whether they are “in accordance with law.” While this standard has been described in a number of ways, 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 affirmance when an agency’s erroneous factual finding is unnecessary to support its decision.

Salmon v. Commonwealth · filed 1979-02-08

Since, as we have concluded, a finding that the election was not made is not necessary to support the Board’s adjudication, the error was harmless. Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. §704.

Section 704 requires findings of fact sufficient for appellate review of a Commonwealth agency decision; the absence of those findings requires a remand.

Lauer v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Crime Victim's Compensation Board · filed 1983-08-15

Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C. S. §704, in ■setting forth this Court’s scope of review in appeals from “Commonwealth agencies” such as in the case at bar, states that we must affirm the agency decision unless, inter alia, “any finding of fact made by the agency and necessary to .support its adjudication is not supported by substantial evidence.” ... We have not been presented therefore with the findings of fact necessary for the exercise of our appellate review and a remand for the formulation of said findings is therefore necessary.

Section 704 permits affirmance when an unsupported factual finding is unnecessary to support the agency’s adjudication.

Borough of Schuylkill Haven v. Prevailing Wage Appeals Board · filed 2010-08-20

In reviewing a decision of the Board, this Court’s scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether the Board committed an error of law, and whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. ... To the extent that the portion of the Conclusion challenged by the Borough constitutes a factual finding unsupported by substantial evidence, we emphasize as demonstrated by our foregoing address of this matter that any such erroneous semantic formulation of a finding was not a finding necessary to support the Board’s adjudication. It is well established within our jurisprudence that an unsupported finding of fact which is not necessary to the adjudication merely constitutes harmless error.

Section 704 permits a reviewing court that does not affirm an agency adjudication to enter an order authorized by 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 706, including a remand for further proceedings.

Lewis v. Commonwealth · filed 1981-12-14

Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C. S. §704 states that if the adjudication [by an agency] is not affirmed, then the court may enter any order authorized by Section 706 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C. S. §706 which provides that: An appellate court may affirm, modify, vacate, set aside or reverse any order brought before it for review, and may remand the matter and direct the entry of such appropriate order, or require such further proceedings to be had as may he just under the circumstances (emphasis added).

Section 704 requires the court to decide an appeal on the record certified by the Commonwealth agency.

Hine v. UN. COMP. BD. OF REV. · filed 1987-01-20

Although this confusion has not been clarified, we must of course decide appeals on the record certified by the Commonwealth agency.

Section 704 requires an appeal from a Commonwealth agency decision to be heard on the agency-certified record; evidence taken solely for a stay application does not become part of that record.

Peoples Natural Gas Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission · filed 1987-08-13

Concerning Peoples’ request that we somehow confirm in our order disposing of the preliminary objections that the record on appeal must include the evidentiary hearing held with respect to the application for a stay, we note that Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C. S. §704, provides that in appeals from Commonwealth agency decisions, we are to hear the appeal “on the record certified by the Commonwealth agency.” (Emphasis added.) ... While provision is made in Pa. R.A.P. 1951(b) for correcting misstatements or supplying omissions in the record on appeal, both references are to the record “below.” While it is true that both parties here had the opportunity to question witnesses and request evidentiary rulings in the hearing on the application for a stay, it must be remembered that the sole purpose of that proceeding was to determine whether a stay should be granted and not to supplement a record made before the Commission. Under such circumstances, we are constrained to deny Peoples’ alternative request.

Section 704 confines review of a Commonwealth agency decision to the certified agency record.

Anam v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1988-02-17

This Court cannot consider evidence which was not part of the record before the administrative agency with respect to the proceedings sought to be reviewed.

Section 704 governs review of an AOPC reimbursement decision: the court reviews the certified record and affirms unless the adjudication violates constitutional rights or law, or a necessary finding lacks substantial evidence.

Yurgosky v. COM., ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE · filed 1998-11-24

The scope of review to be applied to the AOPC’s decision denying reimbursement is set forth in the Administrative Agency Law. The court shall hear the appeal without a jury on the record certified by the Commonwealth agency. After hearing, the court shall affirm the adjudication unless it shall find that the adjudication is in violation of the constitutional rights of the appellant, or 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 appellate review of a Commonwealth agency decision to the certified agency record, so the court cannot consider evidence outside that record.

S.M. Donahue v. SCSC (DHS) · filed 2021-04-22

However, this Court cannot consider evidence on appeal that was not part of the record before the Commission. ... see also 2 Pa. C.S. § 704 (“The [appellate] court shall hear the appeal . . . on the record certified by the Commonwealth agency . . . .”). Therefore, we will not consider Mr. Donahue’s extra-record evidence.

Section 704 limits an appeal from a Commonwealth agency to the certified agency record.

S.M. Donahue v. SCSC (DHS) · filed 2021-05-03

This Court, however, cannot consider evidence on appeal that was not part of the record before the Commission in this matter. See Pa. Tpk. Comm’n v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 991 A.2d 971, 974 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009); Pryor v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Colin Serv. Sys.), 923 A.2d 1197, 1201 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006); see also 2 Pa. C.S. § 704 (“The [appellate] court shall hear the appeal . . . on the record certified by the Commonwealth agency . . . .”). Therefore, we will not consider Mr. Donahue’s extra-record arguments.

Section 704 provides a limited standard of judicial review for Pennsylvania State Police courts martial.

Commonwealth v. State Conference of State Police Lodges · filed 1990-05-11

Courts martial of Pennsylvania State Police held under the Administrative Code, similar to the board of education disciplinary proceedings under the Public School Code, are subject to judicial review under the Administrative Agency Law; courts martial are therefore subject to the same limited standard of review, 2 Pa.C.S. § 704, as the teachers’ disciplinary proceedings in the Board of Education case. As we said there, that type of review is no substitute for an impartial fact-finder in the first instance.

Section 704 provides deferential review of Commonwealth agency decisions and does not govern review of local housing authority decisions.

Sweeney v. Housing Authority of Chester County (In re Sweeney) · filed 1997-12-02

Accordingly, it is clear that 2 Pa.C.S. § 704, which is applicable to “Commonwealth agencies” and provides for only deferential review of such agencies’ decisions, is not determinative of the standard of review in this case.

Section 704 allows courts to review whether an agency capriciously disregarded material, competent evidence whenever the issue is properly raised.

Leon E. Wintermyer, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board · filed 2002-12-10

Since an adjudication cannot be in accordance with law if it is not decided on the basis of law and facts properly adduced, we hold that review for capricious disregard of material, competent evidence is an appropriate component of appellate consideration in every case in which such question is properly brought before the court.

Section 704’s deferential standard for reviewing Commonwealth agency decisions does not apply to Right-to-Know Law appeals unless adopted by regulation or policy.

Bowling v. Office of Open Records · filed 2010-02-05

As a result, among the provisions which do not apply to the Law is Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 704 (disposition of appeal), which provides, with emphasis added: ... Thus, the Law commands that the usual deferential standard of review on appeal from Commonwealth agencies, such as the OOR, does not apply.

Section 704’s deferential standard of agency review does not govern judicial review of Right-to-Know Law appeals officer decisions.

Bowling v. Office of Open Records · filed 2013-08-20

Title 2 contains 2 Pa.C.S. § 704, which articulates the “traditional” standard of “deferential” agency review, and is thus facially made inapplicable to the RTKL.

Section 704 allows an appellate court to decline to affirm an agency decision based on an error of law and to enter an order authorized by 42 Pa.C.S. § 706.

Vine v. Commonwealth, State Employees' Retirement Board · filed 2010-12-21

As the Board's decision to deny Appellant's request on that basis was grounded on an error of law, pursuant to Section 704 of the Administrative Code, we need not affirm it. See 2 Pa.C.S. § 704; D'Alessandro v. PSP, 594 Pa. 500, 509, 937 A.2d 404, 409 (2007). Instead, Section 704 directs that we may enter any order authorized by Section 706 of the Judicial Code.