Genova v. Veterinary Medical Examining Board

In addition to the substantial evidence requirement for findings, “agencies are also required to demonstrate in their opinions the reasoning that leads the agency from the facts that it has found to the conclusions that it draws from those facts.”

Petitioner, a licensed veterinarian, sought judicial review of a final order issued by the Oregon Veterinary Medical Examining Board (the Board) in which it concluded that petitioner engaged in “unprofessional conduct,” ORS 686.120 and ORS 686.130. On appeal, Petitioner argued that the Board erred by concluding that petitioner engaged in unprofessional conduct under OAR 875-011-0010(24) because the Board’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence. The Board argued that, because its interpretation was plausible and consistent with the wording of the rule and its context, the Court must give deference to its interpretation under Don’t Waste Oregon Com. v. Energy Facility Sitting, 320 Or 132, 142, 881 P2d 119 (1994). In addition to the substantial evidence requirement for findings, “agencies are also required to demonstrate in their opinions the reasoning that leads the agency from the facts that it has found to the conclusions that it draws from those facts.” Drew v. PSRB, 322 Or 491, 499-500, 909 P2d 1211 (1996) (emphases in original). The Court concluded that the Board’s Order lacked substantial reason because the Board failed to adequately explain the reasoning in support of its legal conclusion, particularly in light of Petitioner’s exceptions. Reversed and remanded.