Nehlich v. South Dakota Comprehensive Health Planning Agency, 12768

• Court: Supreme Court of South Dakota
• Writing for the Court: FOSHEIM
• Citation: 290 N.W.2d 477
• Parties: Irene NEHLICH, Dale Roesch, Jerome Fischer, City of Roscoe, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. SOUTH DAKOTA COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH PLANNING AGENCY et al., Defendants andAppellees.
• Docket Number: No. 12768,12768
• Decision Date: 26 March 1980

Page 477

290 N.W.2d 477 Irene NEHLICH, Dale Roesch, Jerome Fischer, City of Roscoe,
Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
SOUTH DAKOTA COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH PLANNING AGENCY et al.,
Defendants andAppellees. No. 12768. Supreme Court of South Dakota. Submitted on Briefs Jan. 21, 1980.
Decided March 26, 1980.

Page 478

Peter J. Buttaro, Aberdeen, for plaintiffs and appellants.

David O. Carter, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, for defendants and appellees; Mark V. Meierhenry, Atty. Gen., Pierre, on the brief.

FOSHEIM, Justice.

An application for a certificate of need was filed with the South Dakota Secretary of Health asking for permission to construct an intermediate care facility in Roscoe, South Dakota. Following a public hearing and a rehearing, the application was rejected. The circuit court upheld the refusal. We affirm.

While appellants concede that neither the trial court nor this court can substitute its judgment for that of the administrative agency, they urge that the adopted findings of fact and conclusions of law were unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record and were arbitrary or capricious and characterized by abuse of discretion.

When the application was heard, SDCL 1-26-36 provided as follows ¹:

The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings. The court may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:

(5) Unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record; or

(6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.

We have had occasion to discuss this standard of review on many occasions. Under this test, the fact that there may be substantial evidence in the record to support findings contrary to those made by the agency is not a reason for reversal. On the contrary, the inquiry is whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the agency's determination. Dail v. South Dakota Real Estate Commission, 257 N.W.2d 709 (S.D.1977); Application of Ed Phillips & Sons Company, 86 S.D. 326, 195 N.W.2d 400 (1972). The term "substantial evidence" means "such relevant and competent evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as being sufficiently adequate to support a...