Cited by

“The standard of review is not heightened where the final decision of the agency decision-maker differs from the recommendation of the ALJ.”

No. 192 v. Minn. Dep ’t of Educ., (d 264, 278 (Minn. 2001)), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

An agency’s conclusions are not arbitrary and capricious if there is a “rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.” (quotation omitted); -47 (Minn. 2023) (stating that the arbitrary-or-capricious standard considers whether the agency has not “genuinely engaged in reasoned decision- making” (quotations omitted)).

An “agency’s conclusions are not arbitrary and capricious so long as a rational connection between the 11 facts found and the choice made has been articulated.” (quotation omitted).

to be accorded to the fact- finding processes of the administrative agency.” (quotation omitted).

15 The commissioner is “not required to treat the ALJ’s recommendation with the same deference an appellate court must accord the findings of a trial court.”

(d 264, 279 (Minn. 2001)).

that Dr. Kamel’s actual treatment of [p]atient 2 did not fall below the standard of care.” But again, we “defer to an agency’s conclusions regarding conflicts in testimony, the weight given to expert testimony[,] and the inferences to be drawn from testimony.”

24, 1986); -75 (Minn. 2001) (noting that an agency exercises its own judgment, independent of the hearing examiner).

may suggest that the agency exercised its will rather than its judgment and was therefore arbitrary and capricious.”

We defer to an agency’s “conclusions regarding conflicts in testimony” and “the inferences to be drawn from testimony.” Cannon, d at 189 (d 264, 278 (Minn. 2001)).

and the inferences to be drawn from testimony.”

10 re Excess Surplus Status of Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minn., (quotation omitted).

An agency’s conclusions are not arbitrary and capricious if there is a “rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.” 646 (Minn. 2023) (stating that the arbitrary or capricious standard considers whether the agency has not “genuinely engaged in reasoned decision-making” (quotation omitted

6 Agency decisions “enjoy a presumption of correctness.” (quotation omitted).

Agency decisions “enjoy a presumption of correctness,” and the “agency decision- maker is presumed to have the expertise necessary to decide technical matters within the scope of the agency’s authority.” (quotation omitted).

1; (“When reviewing agency decisions we ‘adhere to the fundamental concept that decisions of administrative agencies enjoy a presumption of correctness, and deference should be shown by courts to the agencies’ expertise and their special knowledge in the field of their technical training, education, and

An agency decision is arbitrary and capricious if there is no 25 “rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.” (quotation omitted).

st “adhere to the fundamental concept that decisions of administrative agencies enjoy a presumption of 10 correctness, and deference should be shown by courts to the agencies’ expertise and their special knowledge in the field of their technical training, education, and experience.”

standards for our review, we turn to the two arguments advanced by Weeres for reversal of the ALJ’s decision.7 6 The “presumption of correctness” is rooted in the principle that “[t]he agency decision- maker is presumed to have the expertise necessary to decide technical matters within the scope of the agency’s authority.”

An “agency’s conclusions are not arbitrary and capricious so long as a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made has been articulated.” (quotation omitted).

Further, an agency’s conclusions are not arbitrary and capricious as long as a “rational connection between the facts found and the choice made has been articulated.” (quotation omitted).

(quotation omitted); (“[T]he agency’s conclusions ar e not arbitrary and capricious so long as a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made has been articulated.” (quotation omitted)).

“[Appellate courts] defer to an agency’s conclusions regarding conflicts in testimony, the weight given to expert testimony and the inferences to be drawn from testimony.”

ising its will, but rather its best judgment on how the agency could discharge its statutory obligations under [Minnesota statutes] and its permitting responsibilities.” An “agency’s conclusions are not arbitrary and capricious so long as a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made has been articulated.” (Blue Cross) (quotation omitted).

The commissioner is “not required to treat the ALJ’s recommendation with the same deference an appellate court must accord the findings of a trial court.”

Relators support their argument that the commissioner’s decision was arbitrary and capricious by