Nevins v. Board of Parole

Under ORS 183.482(8)(c), the court may set aside or remand orders that are not supported by substantial evidence in the record, based on a reasonable person standard.

Petitioner sought administrative review of a final order by the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision. Petitioner assigned error to the board's reliance on a psychological evaluation that was based on "materially incomplete information about petitioner's prior parole history." Petitioner argued that the psychologist's report contained an inaccurate understanding of petitioner's parole history and that that inaccuracy made it impossible to discern how the psychologist's conclusions were influenced. The board argued that (1) the petitioner was mistaken about the psychologist being unaware of the petitioner's history and (2) that even if the psychologist was not aware of the petitioner's history, the board could reasonably infer that any lack of information did not impact the conclusions. Under ORS 183.482(8)(c), the court may set aside or remand orders that are not supported by substantial evidence in the record, based on a reasonable person standard. The Court found that there was a substantial and material deficit in the psychologist's understanding of the petitioner’s history, and the board could not have known how that deficit impacted the conclusions. Reversed and remanded.