- 4 -
Richardson’s door at approximately 8:25 p.m. on September 2, 2016. By 8:55 p.m. that
same evening the notice had been removed from the door.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When an appellate court reviews the final decision of an administrative agency, we
look through the circuit court’s decision, and review the decision of the agency, here the
ALJ. Cosby v. Dep’t of Human Res., 425 Md. 629, 637, 42 A.3d 596, 601 (2012). Our
role is “limited to determining if there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to
support the agency's findings and conclusions, and to determine if the administrative
decision is premised upon an erroneous conclusion of law.” Milliman, Inc. v. Md. State
Ret. and Pension Sys., 421 Md. 130, 151, 25 A.3d 988, 1001 (2011) (citation omitted).
In applying the substantial evidence test, we must decide, “after reviewing the
evidence in a light most favorable to the administrative agency, ‘whether a reasoning mind
reasonably could have reached the factual conclusion the agency reached.’ ” Colburn v.
Dep’t of Pub. Safety & Corr. Serv., 403 Md. 115, 128, 939 A.2d 716, 724 (2008) (quoting
Bd. of Physician Quality Assurance v. Banks, 354 Md. 59, 68, 729 A.2d 376, 380 (1999)).
We defer to the agency’s (i) assessment of witness credibility, (ii) resolution of conflicting
evidence, and (iii) inferences drawn from the evidence. Schwartz v. Md. Dep’t of Nat. Res.,
385 Md. 534, 554 (2005). When determining the validity of an agency’s conclusions of
law, we give appropriate deference to the agency’s expertise in its own field. People’s
Counsel for Balt. Cnty. v. Surina, 400 Md. 662, 682, 929 A.2d 899, 911 (2007). Thus, “an
administrative agency’s interpretation and application of the statute which the agency