REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION:
When this Court reviews an administrative decision, “if there is substantial evidence in the record to support an agency's findings, the findings will be upheld, even though there may be conflicting evidence in the record.” Kentucky Comm’n on Human Rights v. Fraser, 625 S.W.2d 852, 856 (Ky. 1981) (citation omitted). “In weighing the substantiality of the evidence supporting an agency's decision, a reviewing court must hold fast to the guiding principle that the trier of facts is afforded great latitude in its evaluation of the evidence heard and the credibility of witnesses appearing before it.” Bowling v. Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet, 891 S.W.2d 406, 409-10 (Ky. App. 1994) (citation omitted). If substantial evidence supports the agency’s decision, “the reviewing court must then determine whether the agency applied the correct rule of law to its factual findings.” Id. at 410 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
FROM: Dept of Rev., Fin. and Adminstrative Cab. v. Wade; 2008-CA-001822, Published, 1/14/2011
———————————-
STANDARD OF REVIEW of ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY'S FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
As the circuit court correctly noted, an administrative agency’s findings of fact are reviewed for clear error, and its conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. “The judicial standard of review of an unemployment benefit decision is whether the [Commission’s] findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence and whether the agency correctly applied the law to the facts.” Thompson v. Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission, 85 S.W.3d 621, 624 (Ky. App. 2002) (citations omitted).
1140. DENIAL OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS.
HUTCHISON (CAROLYN J.)
VS.
KENTUCKY UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION, ET AL.
OPINION AFFIRMING
ACREE (PRESIDING JUDGE)
HENRY (CONCURS)(SENIOR STATUS JUDGE) AND ISAAC (CONCURS)
2010-CA-000032-MR
TO BE PUBLISHED
JEFFERSON
