Cited by

13 “[D]ecisions 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 experience.” (quotation omitted).

Appe llate 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.” In re Excess Surplus Status of Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minn.

“Our guiding principle is that if the ruling by the agency decision-make r is supported by substantial evidence, it must be affirmed.”

In re Excess Surplus Status of Blue C ross & Blue Shield of Minn. , - 78 (Minn. 2001) (citations and quotations omitted).

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

See In re Excess Surplus of Blue Cro ss & Blue Shield of Minn. , –79 (Minn. 2001).

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

We will not reverse or modify an administrative agency’s decision unless it is “unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record.” Minn. Stat. § 14.69(e) (2018)

“An appellate court may reverse or modify an administrative decision if substantial rights of th e petitioners have been prejudiced by administrative findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions that are unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record, or [are] arbitrary and capricious.”

11 Status of Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minn., (quotation omitted).

Substantial evidence is defined “in part as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” In re Excess Surplus Status of Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minn. , (quotation omitted).

In re Excess Surplus St atus of Blue 5 Cross & Blue Shield of Minn., Sweet v. Comm’r of Human Servs., review denied (Minn. Nov.

Agency decisions “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 experience.” (quotation omitted).

Max Schwartzman & Sons , d at 754 ; see also In re Excess Surplus Status of Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minn. , , 278 (Minn. 2001).

see In re Excess Surplus Status of Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minn. , (stating that appellate courts defer to commissioner’s conclusions regarding conflicts in testimony, weight of testimony, and inferences to be drawn from testimony).

But a “court must also recognize the need for exercising judicial restraint and for restricting judicial functions to a narrow area of responsibility lest the court substitute its judgment for that of the agency.” (quotation omitted) (analyzing decision under MAPA).

When reviewing agency decisions, we “adhere to the fundamental concept that deci sions of administrative agencies enjoy a presumption of correctness.” In re Excess Surplus Status of Bl ue Cross & Blue Shield of Minn. , (quotation omitted).

(“[A]dmi nistrative agencies en joy a presumption of correctness, and deference should be shown by courts to agencies ’ expertise and their special knowledge in the field of their tec hnical training, educa tion, and expertise.” (quotation omitted)).

In re Excess Surplus Status of Blue Cro ss & Blue Shield of Minn. , (alteration in original) (quotation and citation omitted).

“We defer to an agency’s conclusions regarding conflicts in testimony” and “inferences to be drawn from testimony.”

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.” In 4 re Excess Surplus Status of Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minn., (quotation omitted).

Device Permits, -7 (Minn. 2003); (explaining that the board does not need to treat the ALJ’s recommendation with the same deference an appellate court must accord the findings of a trial court).

Additionally, when an agency makes a decision that is within its area of expertise, its decision “enjoy[s] a presumption of correctness.”

(noting that appellate courts “defer to an agency’s conclusions regarding conflicts in testimony”).

“[I]f the ruling by the agency decision-maker is supported by substantial evidence, it must be affirmed.”

“[I]f the ruling by the agency decision-maker is supported by substantial evidence, it must be affirmed.”

In re Excess Surplus Status of Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minn., -79 (Minn.2001).

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