Cited by

We “may not usurp the legislature’s role and decide that, as a matter of policy, a certain class of disabled officers should be disqualified from benefits that the legislature intended all officers to receive for the risks they incur while guarding 12 the peace and safety of the citizens of this state.”

In re Claim for Benefits by Meuleners

“Appellate courts retain the authority to review de novo errors of law which arise when an agency decision is based upon the meaning of words in a statute.” (quotation omitted).

Moreover, “[a]ppellate courts retain the authority to review de novo errors of law which arise when an ag ency decision is based upon the meaning of words in a statute.” In re Claim for Benefits by Meuleners , (quotation omitted).

In re Claim for Benefits by Meuleners , , 124 (Minn. App. 2006).

A decision is not supported by substantial evidence if there is a “combination of danger signals which suggest the agency has not taken a hard look at the salient problems and the decision lacks articulated standards and reflective findings.” In re Claim for Benefits by Meuleners , (quotation omitted).

“Judicial review presumes the correctness of an agency decision.”

In re *425 Claim for Benefits by Meuleners

“An agency acts arbitrarily if it fails to articulate a rational connection between facts found and the decision made.” see In re Blue Cross & Blue Shield, (requiring agency to avoid making arbitrary and capricious decision by articulating “rational connection between the facts found and the choice made”).